# DNR to Host Public Information Meetings on Proposed Title 27 Reform



## seaweaver (Jan 9, 2012)

http://coastalgadnr.org/node/100091

I see no "Consent of the Governed"  in this.
cw


----------



## PaulD (Jan 9, 2012)

Under the proposed legislation authority for routine management actions for several species of saltwater fish, blue crabs, horseshoe crabs, jellyfish, and bait shrimp would move to the Board of Natural Resources. 
---So it wouldn't be in the general assembly (vote) any more and instead would go to Board to decide among themselves...........I THINK NOT!


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 9, 2012)

Paul Medders -Thanks for the comment Chris. If you can you need to come to the public meeting and formally express your concerns. The few items that come to mind are the Board has to consider public comments. A lot of this is cleaning up title 27. Over the years the rules have been changed and you get strange things happening like with regards to who has authority. We are trying to be more responsive not take direct involvement away from the public or fishermen in general. Also it is important to point out the changes would make the way we govern satlwater fish be more like our current feshwater rules/laws.


 Paul removal of any authority from the general Assembly IS taking away direct involvement from the citizen. There is no one at the CRD that the citizen can vote out of office should the public feel they are not being served.
2 seconds ago · Like


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 9, 2012)

*Regulation without Representation: The New NORMAL!*

As I have posted here and on other forums, we have an out of control bureaucracy that does as it pleases and answers to no one.  

Several statements from the CRD in this press release are particularly disturbing to me.  The first is: "This is particularly problematic when the State of Georgia needs to implement such measures in support of interstate and/or federal fishery management or in response to an environmental emergency such as an abnormally cold winter."   
I recall that the CRD sold us out for a mere $150,000.00 as a grant to cut the bag limit on WEAKFISH AKA Summer Trout from six to one.  This will give them even more unbridled authority to do more of the same in the future.  
I say, NO MORE!  

Next, this series of statement is very misleading to the ill informed:  "With input from the 18-person Marine Fisheries Advisory Council, CRD staff have prepared a list of specific actions to be included in proposed legislation. “The most important part of this proposal is to give the Board of Natural Resources the ability to manage saltwater fishing like they manage freshwater fishing and hunting,” says Spud Woodward, CRD Director. “The Board meets ten times a year and is able to make routine changes based on current biological conditions and public input. Most importantly, the Board is required by law to consider public comment before making any decision so fishermen will always have an opportunity to weigh in on proposed changes."

The so-called advisory panel of 18, has not met in over two years to my knowledge.  And when they do, the CRD will not listen to them.  They have already made up their minds at one of there ten yearly meetings.   Further are any of us on that advisory council?  I know only one who is and getting on it is difficult to say the least.  Mostly, yes men I am told.  The board does consider the advice of the 18, but does as it pleases.  The missing requirement is consent. 
Fishermen do not have an opportunity to weight in or it they do at meetings, they are badgered by the moderator and we know who that is.  Side issues are brought up that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.  To wit: Red Snapper Closure!  The attendees do that and are told that it is a Federal Matter.  That is true, but remains disruptive.  

Also mentioned is a new program for Saltwater Information at no cost it is said.  Nothing is cost free, we all pay for it with our tax dollars.  I challenge the CRD to pre-advise us all, via a press release, of what that really is and how it will work.  Sounds like it will be compulsory and will
be funneled to the feds for data collection to close down additional fisheries.  But make no mistake, we will pay for it.  

I plan to be there and have our elected representative there as well if possible.  They need to hear the angst of us as over regulated fishermen without any real representation!  See you at Richmond Hill on the 18th.  

Capt. Jimmy Newman


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 13, 2012)

TELL IT JIM!
I wish I were still in Savannah. The level if interest is always low this time of year. Purrfect for regulators.
The Bill
http://coastalgadnr.org/sites/uploa...ishery Management Improvement Act of 2012.pdf


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 13, 2012)

I wish I was still in Ga. I fear it will be as heavily regulated as NC by the time I get back to her. All you fellas near the marinas need to get this posted and get busy. Call your State reps and Congress weasels.
I have no Idea who chairs the PGF and I forget the last boy from Stateboro's name but he gone...


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 15, 2012)

"The General Assembly would give up its management of saltwater fishing to the Board of Natural Resources under a wide-ranging bill drafted by the Department of Natural Resources.
DNR Commissioner Mark Williams, a former legislator, met Friday morning with members of the new, bipartisan Coastal Caucus urging them to support the bill.
The bill awaits introduction, and the members of the caucus had few questions so far.
The caucus is a new organization, assembled by Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Savannah. Its first meeting was last month in Brunswick. The purpose of the caucus is to provide a place to discuss issues dealing strictly with the coast, he said.
Clearly, the rest of the state wont have much of an opinion on what the Department of Natural Resources does down on the coast, he said.  We all think alike on the coast. Its not political."  Savannah Morning News: 1-15-12

Comment and Observations by ME.

Well it is political to me and should be to you, for all politics is consists of a quest for power.  What the DNR is doing is copying the organizational setup of the SAFMC, and we all know how that is working to our benefit.  It by passes the legislative process and vests the final decision in the Commissioner of the DNR.  The so-called advisor panel, which will allow for stakeholder input is nothing more than a sham.  The panel can be packed and swayed by the director to drink the cool aid.  Or, as seems to be the case, listened to as required, and then totally ignored.  In most cases, they have already made up their minds before any public hearing or impute.  Therefore, I do not trust that process which will radically change the current process, which seems fine to me.  

We have a great bag and size limit compared to Florida and South Carolina, for both seatrout and redfish.  Do you want closures and reductions?  What we have does work for us as fishermen.  Who cares if it is inconvenient for the DNR?  They serve us.  We do not serve them.  If we allow this change to go forward, we will be sorry.  We have no snapper or seabass now.  Do you want that for trout and bass inshore, too?  Please call Ron Stephens and Buddy Carter and Ann Purcell to let them know that we do not want tinkering with our fisheries by a Star Chamber of the DNR!  

Capt. Jimmy Newman  

P/S: All you brothers who fish our saltwaters from the upland areas need to take notice, also.  This proposed
paradigm shift will cause us all problems in the future and you too,  when you come down to the coast to fish.  Please contact you state representatives,  since they can vote this proposed measure down.  

RSVP to this post and let us all know that you have contacted your representatives!!!


----------



## G Duck (Jan 16, 2012)

Another Spud power play


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 16, 2012)

G Duck said:


> Another Spud power play



Roger, that!!!


----------



## G Duck (Jan 16, 2012)

The way I understand it, they (DNR) want to be able to bypass the state legislature and implement "emergency" laws that will help in cases like the recent harsh winter, that had  a large speckled trout kill. 
I think that is just an excuse to embolden the Auth. of the DNR. 
We have been having Harsh winters from time to time long before there was such a thing as the DNR. Nature has a way of bouncing back, without the flawed science that the DNR will base their new laws upon.


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 16, 2012)

*Nothing but another layer of Government that we must contend with and suffer .*



G Duck said:


> The way I understand it, they (DNR) want to be able to bypass the state legislature and implement "emergency" laws that will help in cases like the recent harsh winter, that had  a large speckled trout kill.
> I think that is just an excuse to embolden the Auth. of the DNR.
> We have been having Harsh winters from time to time long before there was such a thing as the DNR. Nature has a way of bouncing back, without the flawed science that the DNR will base their new laws upon.



  Those are my exact feelings on the matter.  I hope that you will be at the Brunswick meeting and hammer that home.  Bring plenty of like minded folks, too.  I will do that in Richmond Hill, GA.  We all need to contact our state legislators and tell them- NO, NO!


----------



## G Duck (Jan 16, 2012)

Jimmy, can you post up the dates and location of the mtg?


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 16, 2012)

*Dates and Locations of the Meetings.*



G Duck said:


> Jimmy, can you post up the dates and location of the mtg?



6 pm Jan. 18 at John W. Stevens Wetlands Education Center in Richmond Hill, Ga.  

6 pm Jan. 19 at the College of Coastal Georgia in Brunswick, Ga.  

I will be at the Richmond Hill, Georgia meeting with all my roudy friends.  
I have notified all three of our TV outlets, and the Savannah Morning News, Bryan County News, too.  
I have invited both Senator Buddy Carter and Ron Stephens to have their staff members there.  Mr. Carter told me that he would try to have a staff member there.
But, I think that he is inclined to go for this power shift, or so he indicated when I talked about it at the Congressman Kingston BBQ in Bloomingdale this past Saturday.  State rep. Stephens has not responded.  

You are on SSI I see, so you should be able to go to the meeting in Brunswick.  Try to get all your roudy friends there and alert the media.  We have got to fight this power grab or we will suffer for it.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 16, 2012)

http://savannahnow.com/latest-news/...oversight-dnr-general-assembly#comment-237816
the link to the SMN art referenced above...I did not see the RStevens quote...I'd like to bust his chops abit...let me find him on FB...heck find more reps on FB...


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 16, 2012)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/State-Rep-Ron-Stephens-R-164/72910036976?sk=wall


----------



## PaulD (Jan 17, 2012)

G Duck said:


> The way I understand it, they (DNR) want to be able to bypass the state legislature and implement "emergency" laws that will help in cases like the recent harsh winter, that had  a large speckled trout kill.
> I think that is just an excuse to embolden the Auth. of the DNR.
> We have been having Harsh winters from time to time long before there was such a thing as the DNR. Nature has a way of bouncing back, without the flawed science that the DNR will base their new laws upon.



Yep, yep to your comment before this, and yep we all know what's going on here. A small group of people wanting to dictate what the laws will be rather than having the governed body decide.


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 18, 2012)

Today is the day for the meeting in Richmond Hill, Ga

Tomorrow in Brunswick, Ga

A big turnout is essential for the freedom to fish in Georgia!!!


----------



## Stick (Jan 19, 2012)

I thought the meeting went pretty well last night. Reps Ron Stephens and Jason Spencer were in attendance.  Some good arguments on both sides.  I particularly like the proposed SIP program. If you can make the meeting tonight in Brunswick, you should.


----------



## erock (Jan 19, 2012)

Im going to try to make it tonight. Im hoping to get more info on whats going on. Im split on this right now. Yes, I want us to have a say on any regulations but I hate the fact that some politician up in hills of Georgia gets to determine what goes on down here.

Btw, after party at The Dirty Rug. Wharfs picking up the cover charge and first round.


----------



## bigknob (Jan 19, 2012)

Numbers are crucial...show up everyone..we had poor turn outs for the snapper and you see where that's gotten us!!!!

Bob Black
Ga. Chairman
Recreational Fishing Alliance


----------



## G Duck (Jan 19, 2012)

Just got back from the Bwk Meeting. The main thing that I have a problem with, with the proposed legislation, is that the new "board" will be composed of un-elected members. If decisions are made that will impact us (voters) it should be done in the democratic way that the constitution was framed. 
I think everyone there tonight wants to see the fishing in Ga. improve, for the present and future generations. 
What happens down the road ten or twenty years from now, if the board consists of persons who do not share the interest that we do over the fishery? In most cases I wish that government would react much quicker to a crisis, but with this in place, with the wrong people in place way down the road, we may regret this.
Bob, I appreciate your comments this evening, and agree.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2012)

What "new Board"?


----------



## G Duck (Jan 19, 2012)

"Saltwater Fin Fish Advisory Board"
Bottom line is that appointed, rather than elected officials are able to make the decisions (Under the new proposal) If I understand it wrong, let me know.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 20, 2012)

It is my understanding that the DNR Board would regulate saltwater species as they currently do with hunting and freshwater fishing.

The various advisory boards do just that, "advise".

Final authority rests with the DNR Board.


----------



## G Duck (Jan 20, 2012)

The various advisory boards do just that, "advise".

Final authority rests with the DNR Board.[/QUOTE]


If you were at the meeting, that is the reason for the disagreement. Most folks want people that are held accountable by the voters making the final decisions. You, being from walton county, or any county in any district, will no longer be able to have a real voice, or an ear to talk to that relies on your vote. 
We can agree to disagree. Don't want another snapper argument.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 20, 2012)

At Richmond Hill there were about a half dozen folks that spoke against the proposal. I didn't get a count on those that were for it or unopposed but they were in the majority.

That aside, I'm not arguing. I was just pointing out that under the proposed legislation the DNR Board holds the authority, not the advisory boards.

Georgians, whether they live in Savannah or Cartersville, will, just as they do now, have a say in the process. The only difference lies in the streamlining of the process.


----------



## G Duck (Jan 20, 2012)

I agree on the Advisory board vs the DNR board, I stand corrected.
I understood that if passed, it would give the DNR Commissioner the authority to implement emergency actions. As noted last night, I am happy with the current commissioner, and am glad that he actually looks like a hunter and fisherman. I hope that he will be here for the long haul, but we all know that when a new governor is elected that may change. Not arguing either, you still have a Triple Tail trip invite this year if you want!


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 20, 2012)

G Duck said:


> when a new governor is elected that may change. Not arguing either, you still have a Triple Tail trip invite this year if you want!



This has been my biggest reservation with this legislation and for the record, I have not decided if I am going to support it or not.

I do believe we will be better off with 18 people who are appointed by a conservative Govorner, because they have shown an interest in Georgia's natural resources, working with the Commissioner, than we would be having our fisheries used as a playing chip in a discussion with some urban representative who wants to trade his/her vote to a coastal rep in exchange for a vote on a new welfare program.

Would I feel the same way if Mark Taylor was the Governor? 

It's a quandary.

I'll be spending most of April @ SSI. Hopefully we can fish a bit! Thanks for the invite!


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 20, 2012)

Will someone who was there post a narrative of the Title 27 Meeting in Georgia with an in depth analysis of what was the audience reactions and comments????

Thanks,
Capt. Jimmy
I would offer an in depth analysis but I was not there.  I did for the Richmond Hill meeting and hope that someone will for Brunswick.


----------



## Stick (Jan 20, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> This has been my biggest reservation with this legislation and for the record, I have not decided if I am going to support it or not.
> 
> I do believe we will be better off with 18 people who are appointed by a conservative Govorner, because they have shown an interest in Georgia's natural resources, working with the Commissioner, than we would be having our fisheries used as a playing chip in a discussion with some urban representative who wants to trade his/her vote to a coastal rep in exchange for a vote on a new welfare program.
> 
> ...



I'm of the same opinion, but the fact that anything the board passes will go before the legislature the following session gives me a voice with my elected Rep if the changes are not positive.


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 20, 2012)

Bryannecker said:


> Will someone who was there post a narrative of the Title 27 Meeting in Georgia with an in depth analysis of what was the audience reactions and comments????
> 
> Thanks,
> Capt. Jimmy
> I would offer an in depth analysis but I was not there.  I did for the Richmond Hill meeting and hope that someone will for Brunswick.



COME FISHERMEN, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO POST THE RESULTS OF THE BRUNSWICK MEETING.


----------



## G Duck (Jan 20, 2012)

Jimmy, I was there for most of the meeting. Spud Woodward made the initial introduction. William Ligon, our representative, along with Rep. Nimmers (sp?) and one other that I did not catch the name of. I heard that Bob Lane was supposed to be there, but I came in as it was starting and I did not see him introduced. The new commissioner was also present.
I would guess the same info was presented as it was at the Hill, It took about 40 Minutes.
During the start, there were a couple of outburst of questions, from folks obvious against the measure. 
Next, near the front, someones I phone rang about 10 times before he answered it and proceeded to have a conversation during the presentation. 
When the Q&A session started I would say that the discussion was about 90% against the measure, and 10% or less spoke in favor of the measure. 
There were a couple of folks that made jabs at the DNR in a dis-respectfull way. 
The common thread between all of the people that spoke out was that of fear of having DNR making decisions (limits and closures), rather than having people that are accountable to the voters. 
One of the ones that spoke in favor of the measure was Wendell Harper, citing having the two worst years in trout fishing that he can recall. Mr. Bice Representing the CCA spoke in favor of the measure also. 
One Gentleman asked for a straw pole, or show of hands of who was for the measure, I would have to say less than 15 raised thier hands, (someone else may have a better count, that is what I saw from the back). I would guess that the number present was around  140 -150??
Another Gentleman from a wildlife organization, not sure what it was, stood up near the front and praised the measure. Pushed for people to join his organization. He sounded sincere. 
Mr. Bob Black raised some good questions also. Representing the RFA. 
Near the End, William Ligon stood up and spoke, he wanted to Echo what he was hearing, which was what I mentioned earlier was that the fear of the decisions being made by the DNR, and taken away from the General Assembly.
I will add more as I remember, but that is what I took away, and I did leave early. Hopefully It did not end up as a brawl after I left.
I do respect both sides of this and have friends on either side of this issue.


----------



## G Duck (Jan 20, 2012)

Quote Mechanicaldawg

" I do believe we will be better off with 18 people who are appointed by a conservative Govorner, because they have shown an interest in Georgia's natural resources, working with the Commissioner, than we would be having our fisheries used as a playing chip in a discussion with some urban representative who wants to trade his/her vote to a coastal rep in exchange for a vote on a new welfare program.

Would I feel the same way if Mark Taylor was the Governor? "

It's a quandary."

Thats how I feel too, If this passes, it will be hard to reverse, almost impossible (I think).  With the way this country is shifting, I think that making the existing laws harder to change will be our safest protection of what we have in place now.


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 21, 2012)

*The End result of Management is what counts, not the process!!!*



G Duck said:


> Jimmy, I was there for most of the meeting. Spud Woodward made the initial introduction. William Ligon, our representative, along with Rep. Nimmers (sp?) and one other that I did not catch the name of. I heard that Bob Lane was supposed to be there, but I came in as it was starting and I did not see him introduced. The new commissioner was also present.
> I would guess the same info was presented as it was at the Hill, It took about 40 Minutes.
> During the start, there were a couple of outburst of questions, from folks obvious against the measure.
> Next, near the front, someones I phone rang about 10 times before he answered it and proceeded to have a conversation during the presentation.
> ...





G Duck said:


> Quote Mechanicaldawg
> 
> " I do believe we will be better off with 18 people who are appointed by a conservative Govorner, because they have shown an interest in Georgia's natural resources, working with the Commissioner, than we would be having our fisheries used as a playing chip in a discussion with some urban representative who wants to trade his/her vote to a coastal rep in exchange for a vote on a new welfare program.
> 
> ...



_Thanks for the narrative and your opinion as quoted above.
The process seems to the be the focus of this debate about a shift in legislative action.  But, consider that we have the best bag and size limits in the southeastern Atlantic coast.  15 Trout at 13" and five 14-23" Redfish.  Look at what they have in NC, SC, and Fla, and compare them to our current management as cited here.  Do we want limits like theirs with season closures to boot?  That is the real question.  Do we like what the end result is at this time or do we want to change the process to get what our neighbor states have?  I like what the process is here in Georgia and the results of that process.  

My advice to those who like the so-called greener pastures and the management that they have in our neighbor states is to move there and you will be happy as a Lark, and you will keep bigger fish but much less per trip.  _


----------



## Stick (Jan 22, 2012)

my idea of sound management is knowing there will be fish for my children and their children to catch........Not that I can keep enough fish to feed my family for a week, in one trip.


----------



## brailediver (Jan 22, 2012)

All of these persons are pro closure. I've sat & listened to them too many times to count. They have octagon shaped heads with many faces that are presented with careful selection for the person they are talking to.
DNR threw us divers under the bus over the Grays decision. Look where we are now! Exactly where we said we would be even though we were told "that will never happen". Keep fisheries decisions under elected officials! Not cronies appointed for their opinions in favor of more restrictions, tighter regulations, creel & size limits that match surrounding states &, yes SEASONAL CLOSURES!!!!!! Want to eat tilapia over the closed months? Any one that attended the SAFMC meetings that systematically cut our grouper to 1 per person per day with a closed season, closed Black Sea Bass because we caught more in a 6 month season with a 5 fish creel limit than we did with a 12 month season & 15 per person limit, killed the offshore charter fishing industry, eliminated jobs in coastal communities with some of the most Edited To Remove ProfanityEdited To Remove Profanity data that I have ever seen, will tell you what these same people are capable of in the name of perpetuating their jobs!
Don't trust them any farther than you can throw them! Otherwise you will not be able to harvest inshore fish. What people don't understand is that we don't have the fishing pressure that Florida has, or the days at sea. We also have richer estuary systems that allow faster recovery in the event of a problem.
Maybe the Kayak fishermen, fly-fishermen, & catch & release guys just aren't catching any fish like they did up north or in Cali & cannot stand to see a limit of trout come in to the landing. You know how many times I hear " thats absurd to keep that many fish" from a kayak fisherman at the back river boat ramp? We actually eat those fish & give them to our neighbors & friends that cannot get out to catch their own.

From Coastal outdoors-

""Coincidental facts that you may want to consider.

One of the three SAFMC members from GA, Duanne Harris, was the former Director of the GA DNR Coastal Resources Division and is a member of the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) committee.

Another of the three SAFMC members from GA, Doug Haymans, works in the directors office at the GA DNR Coastal Resources Division. He is the chairperson for the SAFMC Advisory Panel Selection Committee and is a member of the Catch Shares Committee, the Personnel Committee and several other SAFMC committees.

Carolyn Belcher, who works for the GA DNR, is the chairperson of the SAFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

Patrick Geer, who works for the GA DNR, is the Georgia Subpanel Chair of the SAFMC Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel (which also has members from Pew on it).

Chris Dummit Woodward, who I believe is Spud's wife, is the chairperson of the SAFMC Information and Education Advisory Panel.

Doug Lewis, who works for the GA DNR, is on the SAFMC Law Enforcement Advisory Panel.

Spud Woodward, Director of the GA DNR Coastal Resources Division and Doug Lewis are on the Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council

Outside of their authority, yes. Is the DNR complicit with NOAA and the SAFMC in developing closures that affect GA fisherman? I think so.""
Re-read the above & think about why these persons with a " close it all down so we don't have an enforcement problem" would consider cutting creel limits, closing areas as no take zones, & seasonal closures that are put in place to solve non-existent problems. We have faced these people before! Look at the outcome!!!
I have fished here in Savannah all of my life & have never had a problem limiting out on Trout or Redfish. Not last year, the year before,not this year.
*Oppose this change!!!!!*
Keep our fishing rights under the power of elected officials!!!
Or come back to read this thread next year when you cannot go out fishing & actually keep a fish!


----------



## PaulD (Jan 22, 2012)

That's a fact folks. The people who want this to pass wil benefit themselves by having further authority to place closures in effect, as they have in the past. No matter what you think about the state legislature voting on things it's more fair the more people are allowed to vote as it keeps things in check better., the more people that vote the less likely it is to allow special interest influence to have bearing. Plus elected officials are readeasier to vote out than appointed officials.


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 22, 2012)

*I Agree with Braildiver and Paul but not Stick and his ilk.*



PaulD said:


> That's a fact folks. The people who want this to pass wil benefit themselves by having further authority to place closures in effect, as they have in the past. No matter what you think about the state legislature voting on things it's more fair the more people are allowed to vote as it keeps things in check better., the more people that vote the less likely it is to allow special interest influence to have bearing. Plus elected officials are readeasier to vote out than appointed officials.



*THANKS: BRAIL AND Paul.  

It seems that some of the folks who what to preserve fish for their children, and grandchildren are using the same logic as: "Do it for the children."  They tend to be well intentioned but are utterly gullible.  A lot of that has to do with their youth and lack of experience.  They drink the cool aide of the demi-gods who promise them, "Hope and Change"-Yes we Can...etc.  Then when things do not go their way blame someone else for the ills that beset them.
But even when confronted with salient arguments do not seem to get it.  They are the on the front lines of the occupy movement.  They chain themselves to trees and do all sorts of radical acts to further their cause. 

On the other hand there are a great many out there who do get it,  and will not be for change for the sake of change. The former being rather liberal in their outlook, while the latter group of older, wiser citizens tend to be more conservative in their demeanor.  If it not broke do not change it!!!! 

So, those of us who are opposed to this change must realize that the liberal mindset is such that we cannot reason with them.  I wonder why we even try?
*


----------



## Stick (Jan 22, 2012)

Older and wiser...  It shows Capt.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 22, 2012)

Stick said:


> my idea of sound management is knowing there will be fish for my children and their children to catch........Not that I can keep enough fish to feed my family for a week, in one trip.



I agree with you Stick.

The more I consider this legislation to more I think I will support it. 

It does streamline things and brings saltwater management into line with way all other fisheries and game are managed in Georgia.

The positive out-weighs the negative.


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 22, 2012)

Stick said:


> Older and wiser...  It shows Capt.



It sure does!


----------



## G Duck (Jan 22, 2012)

Stick said:


> my idea of sound management is knowing there will be fish for my children and their children to catch........Not that I can keep enough fish to feed my family for a week, in one trip.



I dont think anyone who is against this measure, wants to deplete the rescource, and take away fish for our children. That is an unfair stereotype.


----------



## breampole (Jan 22, 2012)

need to hire a lobbyist to effectively stop legislation.  I really don't believe these hearings are paid very much attention.  A petition with multiple signatures from all over the state might help.  Once something is in the hands of an agency it is curtains for the public to have any say so.  That is what is wrong with our federal and state government.  We are being run by power mad hirelings and appointees who represent their own views which are seldom the views of the masses. 







A


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 22, 2012)

stic you need to hang around the Old guys. Their memory is long.

Do not get caught up in the good intention bunk.
The road to hades is paved w/ good intentions.
Never let your freedom be placed where you cannot touch it. 
By ceding authority to an agency you have no control over is not what good Americans do.
You should be demanding more control over bureaucrats rather than yielding to them. There are those in this thread that have always been a proponent of giving more autonomy to the DNR
You better take a good listen to these old guys, they were in your shoes once. 
You need to ask yourself...If you are willing to give away your REAL control, what else can you do with out?

cw


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 23, 2012)

*I rest my case!!!!*



seaweaver said:


> stic you need to hang around the Old guys. Their memory is long.
> 
> Do not get caught up in the good intention bunk.
> The road to hades is paved w/ good intentions.
> ...



Judge:  Your Honor:

I rest my case!


----------



## PaulD (Jan 23, 2012)

Stick said:


> my idea of sound management is knowing there will be fish for my children and their children to catch........Not that I can keep enough fish to feed my family for a week, in one trip.



My kids will have fish to catch.......and the right to fish for them and harvest a fair amount based on sounds research and science.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 24, 2012)

brailediver said:


> closed Black Sea Bass because we caught more in a 6 month season with a 5 fish creel limit than we did with a 12 month season & 15 per person limit,



I think it was closer to 4 months than 6.  Summer months at that.


----------



## Stick (Jan 24, 2012)

> stic you need to hang around the Old guys. Their memory is long.
> 
> Do not get caught up in the good intention bunk.
> The road to hades is paved w/ good intentions.
> ...



Show me where I chose a side...  

I don't know why these "old folks" are so quick to judge.   I'm concerned about the proposed legislation just like you "old folks".  That's why I went to the meeting.  To get more information, not to watch a bunch of old men make fools of themselves...

My comment about sound management was in direct reply to the previous post strictly relating management to bag limits and stating Georgia's is better because it's bigger.  I don't subscribe...  

The grumble I heard before and after the meeting in RH was all about limits.  It sounds selfish and greedy.  Not a very effective approach to opposition IMO.  There have been some very good arguments made against the proposed legislation.  Those are the types that need to be brought forth, not some elementary attempt to bully from behind a keyboard...  

I thought most "old folks" would have long outgrown some of the trivial and adolescent comments that have been brought forward.

I don't want to see any closures, or reduced limits.  I like to fish just like y'all do.  I like to eat fish and YES, I want my children to enjoy what I enjoy, down the road.  I DON'T want some politician bartering my right to fish or the security of the fishery for something unrelated.  I don't want any special interest group pushing their agenda either.  I want sound management to protect our fishery in the event it becomes endangered.  I will deal with a reduction or closure if it is in the best interest of the fishery.  I'd be stupid not to.  

Seaweaver, you have brought some good points to light and sound reasonable, thank you.  I see it like this....if DNR makes a rule to reduce the limit or close a fishery (for a maximum of 6 months), that rule would have to go before the legislatures in the next session.  Maybe I misunderstood, but that gives me a voice to oppose, but also gives our DNR room to manage more effectively.  I'm not giving up my rights, I'm allowing DNR to perform their function and manage.  

I don't see DNR as an absolute authority in this proposal.  But, I'm not a "CO click" member, I'm young at 38 and the fact that I care enough about the resource to be proactive and not reactive must make me wrong.  I will not fall in line behind some because they cry the loudest or are the oldest.  I'm done here, I will form my own opinion and if the legislation comes forth I will express my opinion to my Representative.


----------



## slabhunter (Jan 25, 2012)

I suggest linking the gross abuse of the Federal Fisheries Management Councils and the blatant influence peddling by commercial interests that ARE NOT U.S. OWNED! in many instances (silent financing) through various Lobbying firms. Old fashioned payola good ole boy politics at its finest. Pretty much a blend of personal quests for power & authority without challenge is to be created by this Title 27 reform it appears, for without voter oversight in some fashion, where does their authority lie? 

As I see it, you cannot de-link the two and once upon a time, we had an Amendment which addressed these issues, prior to the suspension of The Constitution as the Law of the Land that is. While I fully support the best efforts of our fisheries experts, sufficient mechanisms for independent oversight and Legislative redress must exist or our _Natural Rights_ as enumerated are violated. 

Georgia does NOT need the mess they have in Florida with all of the competing interests just like they don't. Time to draw lines in the sand if we are to not face assimilation by the State. Really!


----------



## Bryannecker (Jan 25, 2012)

*Thanks for cogent and salient statements!*



slabhunter said:


> I suggest linking the gross abuse of the Federal Fisheries Management Councils and the blatant influence peddling by commercial interests that ARE NOT U.S. OWNED! in many instances (silent financing) through various Lobbying firms. Old fashioned payola good ole boy politics at its finest. Pretty much a blend of personal quests for power & authority without challenge is to be created by this Title 27 reform it appears, for without voter oversight in some fashion, where does their authority lie?
> 
> As I see it, you cannot de-link the two and once upon a time, we had an Amendment which addressed these issues, prior to the suspension of The Constitution as the Law of the Land that is. While I fully support the best efforts of our fisheries experts, sufficient mechanisms for independent oversight and Legislative redress must exist or our _Natural Rights_ as enumerated are violated.
> 
> Georgia does NOT need the mess they have in Florida with all of the competing interests just like they don't. Time to draw lines in the sand if we are to not face assimilation by the State. Really!


 I agree.  
Thank you sir for your cogent statements-Supra.  You really get it and have a full understanding of this situation in the same manner as did our founding fathers, who were by the way, old men.  They knew that a system of checks and balances must be in place to thwart tryanny in any form.  That is why we demonstrate passionately our love of individual freedoms including the right to fish and hunt.  If that means that we are fools, then call me a fishing fool.  
  

Again, thanks for your outstanding comments.  You are a learned and wise individual, sir.


----------

