# DNR Regulation of Saltwater Fisheries in GA



## Bryannecker (Mar 5, 2012)

For the latest on the revamping of the way that creel and size limits are enacted, go the below listed link and see that it has passed out of the house and is now in the senate of the Georgia legislature.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/869

It is house bill 869.  If you have an opinion pro of con, now is the time to contact your state senator and express that opinion.  

That topic has been discussed and debated as to the merits thereof on this forum in the months leading up to this legislative session and the DNR has mounted a campaign to see that their power is expanded to allow for immediate action on the issue of so-called emergency enactments.  

I just thought that you as interested fishermen would like to know what is coming down the pike.  

I think that most on this forum know what my position is on this piece of legislation.  So, speak now or forever hold your peace.  

Capt. Jimmy  

The correct link is:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/869


----------



## PaulD (Mar 5, 2012)

(a) The commissioner shall have the power to close all or any portion of the salt waters of
284 this state to commercial and noncommercial fishing by species for a period not to exceed
285 six months within a calendar year. Any determination to close the salt waters pursuant to
286 this subsection or to reopen such waters shall be made in accordance with current, sound
287 principles of wildlife research and management.

-NOT A GOOD IDEA! No check and balance system. Think I'll get on the phone here shortly. No agency, appointed or elected needs to be in a position of lone authority over the resources of it's governed people. It needs to be left to the vote of those appointed by the governed where a balanced system can stay upheld.


----------



## basser (Mar 5, 2012)

Lets see which would you rather have?  Sound fisheries management  using scientific data or political posturing.  Sound fisheries management should always win.  You never know when you are going to be sold out by some politician looking for a political favor from another.  Yes you can vote them out, but once its done it is very hard to reverse.  So I would very much like to have sound fisheries management rather than politics decide what is best for the fisheries,


----------



## PaulD (Mar 5, 2012)

It's political appointment to get on the panel............So do you want appointed politicians that you can't vote out making the decision or do you want the ones you can vote out doing it????


----------



## brailediver (Mar 5, 2012)

We MIGHT not ever know when we will be sold out by a politician, but we KNOW that our DNR, CRD & SAFMC enforcers will & HAVE sold us down the river. 
 You think that legislation is hard to reverse? Just try to get DNR & CRD to reverse something!
 Once they take it away, they NEVER give it back!
 They never make a decision based on sound science. Knee jerk reactions & biased data are the norm for fisheries managers. DNR will have it shut down because "it is an enforcement problem. We don't have the resources to police this amount of fishermen, so shut it all down & no more problem!
 Be careful what you wish for!
"-NOT A GOOD IDEA! No check and balance system. Think I'll get on the phone here shortly. No agency, appointed or elected needs to be in a position of lone authority over the resources of it's governed people. It needs to be left to the vote of those appointed by the governed where a balanced system can stay upheld."
 Don't give away your right to decide  for yourself!


----------



## basser (Mar 5, 2012)

If they have to follow sound fisheries management using the best scientific data available, Then the answer is yes.  Buy the way the legislature still has a good bit control over the DNR as that where the money comes from.


----------



## brailediver (Mar 5, 2012)

"Chapter 7 of Title 52 of the O.C.G.A., relating to the registration, operation, and sale of watercraft, so as to establish the date of rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Natural Resources used to establish criminal violations; to correct cross-references; to provide for effective dates; to repeal conflicting laws;* and for other purposes. *"
 Sounds kind of broad & grey to me! Maybe shady is the right word.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Mar 5, 2012)

basser said:


> Lets see which would you rather have?  Sound fisheries management  using scientific data or political posturing.  Sound fisheries management should always win.  You never know when you are going to be sold out by some politician looking for a political favor from another.  Yes you can vote them out, but once its done it is very hard to reverse.  So I would very much like to have sound fisheries management rather than politics decide what is best for the fisheries,



Can't really trust what you call "scientific data", we all know how that can be manipulated, look at NOAA and the FMC's. See how they used so called "scientific data" to shut down almost every fishery in the south Atlantic. What you fail to see is, that Obama has loaded up the fishery Management Councils with people who are either   flaming tree huggers, or are under the influence of the commercial fishing lobby.Obama and his cronies intend to rule by regulation instead of legislation, his appointees will be here long after he is gone, like a cancer. Kind of like trusting the UAW to do what is better for the car buying public, than the card carrying union  members, ain't gonna happen.

So, why should we let the DNR handle it, then they will be under the influence of the GWF, and we know where they stand. 

I see where you come from on letting "actual" data determine closures and creel limits, the only problem that is we, fishers, do not trust the source of so called "scientific data".


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 5, 2012)

basser said:


> Lets see which would you rather have?  Sound fisheries management  using scientific data or political posturing.  Sound fisheries management should always win.  You never know when you are going to be sold out by some politician looking for a political favor from another.  Yes you can vote them out, but once its done it is very hard to reverse.  So I would very much like to have sound fisheries management rather than politics decide what is best for the fisheries,



You've got it dead right Sir.


----------



## geaux-fish (Mar 5, 2012)

What am I back in Louisiana.


----------



## KINCHAFooneeryan (Mar 5, 2012)

I personally don't see anything wrong with the bill. Sometimes i think DNR CRD gets a bad rep from NOAA and NMFS mistakes. 

I think our inshore fisheries have been managed pretty well if you asked me. Compare our bag limits to...lets say FLA, hands down GA wins....and to top it off we still have one of the cheapest fishing licenses in the country to boot. 

Here's an excerpt from when the House was debating noodling:
Rep. Roger Bruce, D-Atlanta, "What is noodling?"

"You know, what we would do when we were young 'uns. We'd reach up in the creek bank and pull that catfish out," said the bill's sponsor Rep. Pete Warren, D-Augusta.

Warren went on to say, "They ought to legalize it because it takes a dern fool to go out there and do it in the first place."

Do you really want state politicians to be involved in management decisions?


----------



## PaulD (Mar 5, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> You've got it dead right Sir.




Just so we're clear. You also supported the closure of the snapper and grouper fishery, even though the SAMFC admited the data collection they had done was outdated and had a VERY high margin of error.

KITCH, so you know, several members that are on that panel are HEAVILY involved with NOAA and the SAMFC. If you give them a call they won't hide the fact that they really like the idea of reducing the creel limits here in Ga and modeling our fishery after Florida's fishery. They also are fans of "temporary" closures. Just do your research on it. If it looks good to you go for it, just realize, if you don't like the decisions they make then you can't vote them out. You will be stuck with them.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 5, 2012)

PaulD said:


> Just so we're clear. You also supported the closure of the snapper and grouper fishery, even though the SAMFC admited the data collection they had done was outdated and had a VERY high margin of error.



Nope! You are just as wrong as usual.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 5, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Nope! You are just as wrong as usual.



Please avoid personal attacks, Thanks.

Here's previous post to back up my statement as not being incorrect, or personal. Post 10, line 1. 

I'm not saying anymore now.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=411320&highlight=red+snapper


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 5, 2012)

If you think pointing out that you are usually wrong about me and my stance on anything is a personal attack perhaps a little maturity would be a good thing to add to your life.

Trust me, I know me and my positions much, much better than you.

I have never supported a "snapper closure" other than closing the door on the fish box when they hit the bottom.

I stated in that thread that CCA supported a closure to a degree. Not only did I not say anything about ME supporting a closure, as it turns out, I was incorrect about CCA's stance relative to that closure, as were you and several others here.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 5, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> If you think pointing out that you are usually wrong about me and my stance on anything is a personal attack perhaps a little maturity would be a good thing to add to your life.




Again, please avoid personal attacks such as this.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 5, 2012)




----------



## creekrocket (Mar 5, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


>



Ditto....


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 5, 2012)

Parker Phoenix said:


> Can't really trust what you call "scientific data", we all know how that can be manipulated, look at NOAA and the FMC's. See how they used so called "scientific data" to shut down almost every fishery in the south Atlantic. What you fail to see is, that Obama has loaded up the fishery Management Councils with people who are either   flaming tree huggers, or are under the influence of the commercial fishing lobby.Obama and his cronies intend to rule by regulation instead of legislation, his appointees will be here long after he is gone, like a cancer. Kind of like trusting the UAW to do what is better for the car buying public, than the card carrying union  members, ain't gonna happen.
> 
> So, why should we let the DNR handle it, then they will be under the influence of the GWF, and we know where they stand.
> 
> I see where you come from on letting "actual" data determine closures and creel limits, the only problem that is we, fishers, do not trust the source of so called "scientific data".



Well said!


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 5, 2012)

Parker Phoenix said:


> Can't really trust what you call "scientific data", we all know how that can be manipulated, look at NOAA and the FMC's. See how they used so called "scientific data" to shut down almost every fishery in the south Atlantic. What you fail to see is, that Obama has loaded up the fishery Management Councils with people who are either   flaming tree huggers, or are under the influence of the commercial fishing lobby.Obama and his cronies intend to rule by regulation instead of legislation, his appointees will be here long after he is gone, like a cancer. Kind of like trusting the UAW to do what is better for the car buying public, than the card carrying union  members, ain't gonna happen.
> 
> So, why should we let the DNR handle it, then they will be under the influence of the GWF, and we know where they stand.
> 
> I see where you come from on letting "actual" data determine closures and creel limits, the only problem that is we, fishers, do not trust the source of so called "scientific data".





PaulD said:


> (a) The commissioner shall have the power to close all or any portion of the salt waters of
> 284 this state to commercial and noncommercial fishing by species for a period not to exceed
> 285 six months within a calendar year. Any determination to close the salt waters pursuant to
> 286 this subsection or to reopen such waters shall be made in accordance with current, sound
> ...



These are my concerns with this legislation!   Very well stated, Paul.


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 13, 2012)

*869 passes out of the senate to the floor.*

News Flash-The Senate Natural Resources & Enviroment Committee in session: Today 3/13/12, reported as passed out of committee HB 869.  This may be the beginning of the end of real representation of the individual fishermen in Georgia, if it passes on the floor vote after debate. 

I am sure that the CCA and GWF membership, or at least their leaders,  will be happy.  But be very careful what you wish for if in the future things go wrong for us here in Georgia as fishermen, just as they have in federal waters.

Shall the collective will of the fishermen win over the individual wishes of the saltwater fishermen?  Only time will tell.  Will the mind set of the groups, who purport to be the representatives of the rank and file, trump the individual rights that flow from GOD to all mankind?  I do hope not,  and that the balance will swing back to individual rights as opposed to the collective, so-called, rights of the groups organized to protect us from ourselves.  

Some of you folks out there will understand this rhetoric, while others never will.  Our forefathers did when they founded this country.  Are we becoming a nation of rule by regulation?  I fear that we are.  

Maybe, just maybe it will fail on a floor vote in the senate.
But that, too, remains to be seen.  Oh, but then again, the real experts know what is best for us and how to protect us from ourselves.  "Trust me, I am from the Government and I am here to help you!"  
Capt. Jimmy


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 13, 2012)

Thanks for the report of good news!

Was there much/any opposition in the Committee hearing?


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Mar 13, 2012)

I see it as another example of regulation without legislation, or accountability.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 13, 2012)

There's no accountability. No check system either. To fallible and easy to corrupt. Special interest is already a huge issue and this will make it worse. Anyone that has a dog in this fight and fishes in georgia a lot needs to step up on this. Come on gentlemen.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 13, 2012)

I missed you at the committee meeting! Did you arrive late? There's plenty of accountability. Everyone that showed up was accounted for!

The bill is simple deregulation & commonsense.

People that want fisheries used as a barganning chip for welfare spending just don't get it.

Luckily most of us do!


----------



## PaulD (Mar 13, 2012)

You must have selective vision, Imagine that. 

People who muddy the waters by saying something about welfare must not have anything valid to offer to the topic at hand, come on man, folks aren't dumb, don't insult them.


A smart man knows what to say, a wise man knows when to say it.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 13, 2012)

It's really simple. You are either pro-fishery and fishing or pro-regulation by welfare pimps.

Me? I'm pro-fishing!

If that insults you? You should be. I would hope you wouldn't't be


----------



## PaulD (Mar 13, 2012)

Your'e a council member of a special interest group that supports micro management of the states resources and we know it dude, come on. Either your pro democracy and the right to vote, you support a system of checks and balances, or youre a supporter of an appointed body ruling its people without any recourse or having to answer to those people. 

Not saying any more, man. I know your my fan club and all but this is a serious matter to us locals that fish in Georgia. K?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 14, 2012)

"pro democracy"? "right to vote"?!?!

You really think we live in a democracy?

Please tell me that was an attempt at humor.


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 16, 2012)

Actually, Dawg:  We are a republic.  That means that our elected representatives are supposed to do the will of the people.  It is not the so-called experts or regulators via the many regulatory agencies that are supposed to make the decisions that effect the daily lives of our citizens.  But we have, and are shifting more toward a regulatory driven society.  That is what we really fear from government.  So, by your myopic views, the joke may be on you in the end when the expert regulators do not get it right.  What you perceive as de-regulation is nothing of the kind.  So, no we do not live in a democracy.  Our founding fathers feared the, "Mob Mentality" which could be easily swayed by crafty politicians.  That is what we really have today.  That, my fellow fisherman, is in no way funny.


----------



## basser (Mar 27, 2012)

HB-869 passed the senate yesterday 48-0.  It now goes to the Governor to sign, and it will become law soon.


----------



## Sharkfighter (Mar 27, 2012)

basser said:


> Lets see which would you rather have?  Sound fisheries management  using scientific data or political posturing.  Sound fisheries management should always win.  You never know when you are going to be sold out by some politician looking for a political favor from another.,



And now that the bill has passed we can get more of the sound fisheries management based  on science and not politics!!  

Just like the excellent science based closure of Black Sea Bass off GA!!

But the CCA and pro-bill crowd do make a valid point of sorts.  Why do we want inner city politicians of Atlanta and elsewhere upstate voting to change a size limit or season on say redfish?  What do they know about it?  They just trade votes for political favors unrelated to the fishing.  

The DNR are supposed to be the experts, and therefore more common sense to manage the fisheries but on the other hand the SAFMC are supposed to be expert and we cant keep a sea bass (legally) and there is nothing we can do about.  

I guess we will have to watch the DNR to make sure they dont abuse their new powers the way the SAFMC does.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 27, 2012)

The DNR will do what the SAMFC tells them too. That's where Duanne, Susanne and Spud all came from. You want to talk about political favors, it's about to happen on a huge scale and there won't be any "voting them out". They can do what ever they want too now.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 27, 2012)

basser said:


> HB-869 passed the senate yesterday 48-0.  It now goes to the Governor to sign, and it will become law soon.



Not exactly.

There is still a bit more to the process before it goes to the Governor's desk.


----------



## brailediver (Mar 27, 2012)

Amended-

http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/versions/hb869_Sen_floor_amend_1_AM_40_0028_3.htm-

12 AM 40 0028

ADOPTED
Senators Ligon, Jr. of the 3rd, Carter of the 1st and Jackson of the 2nd offered the following amendment:

Amend HB 869 (LC 40 0036) by striking line 9 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
board; to authorize the repeal of certain rules or regulations; to create and provide for responsibilities of the Coastal Finfish Advisory Panel; to change certain provisions relating to fishing with bow and arrow; to repeal certain

By inserting "(a)" at the beginning of line 161 and striking line 166 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
for by this title.
(b) Within the first ten days of a subsequent legislative session, the board shall report to the appropriate standing committees of each house and to all members whose districts are included within current boundaries of the First Congressional District the following information for the previous year:
(1) A listing and description of rules promulgated by the board for salt-water species listed in Code Section 27-4-10; and
(2) A listing and description of any findings made by the department in making a determination pursuant to Code Section 27-4-130.
(c) The General Assembly may override any rule or regulation promulgated by the board affecting salt-water finfish fisheries after January 1, 2013, by adopting a joint resolution of the General Assembly so stating, the provisions of Code Section 50-13-4 notwithstanding."

SECTION 6A.
Said title is further amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:
"27-4-13.
(a) The Coastal Finfish Advisory Panel is established and shall be attached to the Department of Natural Resources for administrative purposes. The Coastal Finfish Advisory Panel shall consist of 11 members. One member shall be appointed by the commissioner from each of the following counties: Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden. The remaining five members shall reside within the First Congressional District and shall also be appointed by the commissioner. Each member shall serve for a term of two years. Members of the advisory panel shall serve without compensation.
(b) The Coastal Finfish Advisory Panel shall consult with the department to promote and protect recreational and commercial salt-water fishing in this state.
(c) The department shall consult with the Coastal Finfish Advisory Panel on all issues affecting salt-water finfish fisheries, including but not limited to decisions made by the commissioner pursuant to Code Section 27-4-130. The Coastal Finfish Advisory Panel shall be authorized to submit to the General Assembly a report detailing its objection to any rule or regulation adopted by the department under the authority of this chapter."

By striking line 389 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
Section 27-2-23; provided, however, that no cashier employed by a licensed bait dealer and not actively involved in the harvest of bait shrimp shall be required to obtain a commercial fishing license under this Code section. No bait dealer license shall be issued to a person holding a commercial


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Mar 27, 2012)

It's nice to know commercial fishermen can't obtain a bait dealer license. Now I can, sleep at night.......


----------



## basser (Mar 27, 2012)

If you read the senate amendment to the house bill, you would see that the general assembly has final say over any changes the DNR makes to the fisheries. So you can still vote them out if you don't like what they do.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 27, 2012)

basser said:


> If you read the senate amendment to the house bill, you would see that the general assembly has final say over any changes the DNR makes to the fisheries. So you can still vote them out if you don't like what they do.



That is actually a redundant section. The General Assembly already had that authority without this amendment.

This amendment is from the Department of Redundancy Department and was designed to make a narrow segment feel warm and fuzzy.


----------



## brailediver (Mar 27, 2012)

Warm & fuzzy feeling appreciated!


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 27, 2012)

*Upstate support for control of the saltwater fishing??*



Sharkfighter said:


> And now that the bill has passed we can get more of the sound fisheries management based  on science and not politics!!
> 
> Just like the excellent science based closure of Black Sea Bass off GA!!
> 
> ...



Agreed, but look where two of the big supporters are from.
Why, none other than Walton County and Dunwoody. Now both are a fer piece from the coast!


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 27, 2012)

*It sound like Senator Carter did listen after all.*



brailediver said:


> Amended-
> 
> http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/versions/hb869_Sen_floor_amend_1_AM_40_0028_3.htm-
> 
> ...



*It seems that the very same setup was asked for by one of the aged anglers at the Richmond Hill, Ga meeting and that it appears that Senator Carter did listen.  The recommendation was for stakeholders on the coast to be on that finfish advisory council.  While, the recommendation for a binding vote for them was left out, there appears to be a link to the legislature in a more direct manner.  So, maybe my time there was not completely wasted.  So, it now remains to be seen who will represent the various counties in question.  I hope that it will be real, seasoned fishermen.* 
Capt. Jimmy


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 28, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> There is still a bit more to the process before it goes to the Governor's desk.



He said again.


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 28, 2012)

*Back to house for the vote on Senate amendments*



Mechanicaldawg said:


> He said again.



To put it in context, I believe that the bill now goes back to the house for ratification of the amendments.  So, there is a bit more to the process.  You are correct, dawg.


----------



## Sharkfighter (Mar 28, 2012)

Bryannecker said:


> *It seems that the very same setup was asked for by one of the aged anglers at the Richmond Hill, Ga meeting and that it appears that Senator Carter did listen.  The recommendation was for stakeholders on the coast to be on that finfish advisory council.  While, the recommendation for a binding vote for them was left out, there appears to be a link to the legislature in a more direct manner.  So, maybe my time there was not completely wasted.  So, it now remains to be seen who will represent the various counties in question.  I hope that it will be real, seasoned fishermen.*
> Capt. Jimmy



Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf and keeping us so well informed!!


----------



## Reel Big-uns (Mar 29, 2012)

brailediver said:


> Amended-
> 
> http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/versions/hb869_Sen_floor_amend_1_AM_40_0028_3.htm-
> 
> ...


Does _the Commissioner_ refer to the county commissioner.
I am assuming these counties has more than one commissioner, so should this read as Board of Commissioners? 
If this is the case, then it would seem to me that local fishermen could have some strong influence with their Commission board or if the county has only one Commissioner, Their/His/Her, appointee .


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 29, 2012)

Scale Inspector said:


> Does _the Commissioner_ refer to the county commissioner.
> I am assuming these counties has more than one commissioner, so should this read as Board of Commissioners?
> If this is the case, then it would seem to me that local fishermen could have some strong influence with their Commission board or if the county has only one Commissioner, Their/His/Her, appointee .



That is the DNR Commissioner.


----------



## Reel Big-uns (Mar 29, 2012)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> That is the DNR Commissioner.


Yea, I realized this later on.

Even with that, I would think the saltwater fishermen in the coastal counties could still get the local County Commissioners involved with the DNR Commissioner's appointee selections.

I know from experience of being a former state employee that departments that has an appointed Commission head has a more of a dictatorial type attitude due to the fact they don't have to be concerned about public opinions, at large, when making decisions because of political repercussions as the elected   Commissioners do. 

The local elected County Commissioners should be very concerned of how this is going to impact the citizens in their county as well as a potential negative impact on the local economy, especially on the ones who depend greatly on the saltwater resources for their income, if an  unknowledgeable, or unqualified   person is called upon to serve.


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 29, 2012)

*This is where we can be proactive.*



Scale Inspector said:


> Yea, I realized this later on.
> 
> Even with that, I would think the saltwater fishermen in the coastal counties could still get the local County Commissioners involved with the DNR Commissioner's appointee selections.
> 
> ...



I agree with what you said.  That means that we must put pressure on both the DNR "Commissioner" and our representatives to get true coastal fishermen from each county.  If the commissioner picks his lackeys or political friends then the process of shared power will be subverted.  I hope that he will be unbiased and will not look for mere yes men to fill those posts.  That is where we can be pro-active in each county and in the first district to suggest/nominate those who know what is going on and are real saltwater fishermen.  Ignorant folks should not be considered.  We shall see how this arrangement shakes out. 
Capt. Jimmy


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't think it's going to be an issue.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 29, 2012)

Finfish council was stripped from the amendment in the House & agreed to & passed unanimously by the Senate @ 10Pm. 

NOW it goes to the Governor.


----------



## markmg (Mar 29, 2012)

Ahhhhhh yeahhhhhh!!!! The hillbillys loose!!!


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 30, 2012)

markmg said:


> Ahhhhhh yeahhhhhh!!!! The hillbillys loose!!!



Now, now! Nobody lost.

Georgia won.


----------



## Slayer (Mar 30, 2012)

in my opinion....I think the biggest problem that most saltwater fisherman have is the thought of ANY new group or councils or commissions stepping up under the guise of having the "fishermens" best interests in mind.....If you are a charter group or you have a commercial fishing permit, you are being looked after very well.....but if you are a person that grew up fishing the saltwater, matured into an adult, and wanted to continue to enjoy the "Salt Life"...which include buying items like tackle, boats, maybe even property along the coasts..you have seen NOTHING but your rights hampered and lessened by so called politicians and "scientists" that know whats best......our rights have been eroded and our option for coastal fishing has almost been completely taken away from us and given to a "select" few......and I really really hope that nobody actually believes that the "science" that is being used currently to set bag limits and seasons is anything but flawed......you would have a hard time proving your point to anyone other than an idiot


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 30, 2012)

*What you say is true...*



Slayer said:


> in my opinion....I think the biggest problem that most saltwater fisherman have is the thought of ANY new group or councils or commissions stepping up under the guise of having the "fishermens" best interests in mind.....If you are a charter group or you have a commercial fishing permit, you are being looked after very well.....but if you are a person that grew up fishing the saltwater, matured into an adult, and wanted to continue to enjoy the "Salt Life"...which include buying items like tackle, boats, maybe even property along the coasts..you have seen NOTHING but your rights hampered and lessened by so called politicians and "scientists" that know whats best......our rights have been eroded and our option for coastal fishing has almost been completely taken away from us and given to a "select" few......and I really really hope that nobody actually believes that the "science" that is being used currently to set bag limits and seasons is anything but flawed......you would have a hard time proving your point to anyone other than an idiot



It is now even more true,  and the sad fact is that the "select few" will be the bureaucrats down at the CRD/DNR who compile that so-called science.  We will now be at the mercy of those folks.  

Maybe in some folks mind, Georgia won, but it may be that all saltwaterfishermen lost or will lose in the near future when this sweeping law goes into effect. 

 "Lord save the great state of Georgia when the Georgia Legislature is in session. No man nor beast is safe, while it is in session." I believe that Eugene Talmadge said that long ago.  
Capt. Jimmy


----------



## Capt. Scott Griffin (Mar 30, 2012)

Slayer said:


> If you are a charter group or you have a commercial fishing permit, you are being looked after very well




Can you explain this to me.   How are Charter groups or guides being looked after very well...last time I checked we follow the same regs as Recreational fishermen..


----------



## Reel Big-uns (Mar 30, 2012)

Catch and release, Catch and release, Catch and release, Catch and release!!!!!$125.00 and no fish in the cooler!!
Anyone in the market for a 21 dlx Carolina Skiff with a 115 Yammy and trailer???


----------



## Reel Big-uns (Mar 30, 2012)

Capt. Scott Griffin said:


> Can you explain this to me.   How are Charter groups or guides being looked after very well...last time I checked we follow the same regs as Recreational fishermen..



Me too and I've only been on one charter but I think they are an asset  for the whole state and out-of-state population for when visitors are vacationing on our coast and want an opportunity to fish other than from a pier, bridge, surf or bank and have someone who can take them where they will have a better chance of catching fish.

You must admit nearly everyone would rather fish from a boat.


----------



## Slayer (Mar 30, 2012)

Ok...before I get flamed by a group of outstanding fishermen..and this includes the "for hire" guides that have decided to try and making a living in a Market that appears to be evaporating.....its all about "perception"....we all know that commercial fisherman supply the markets.....not so with the guides....but it is extremely hard to be forced to go to a seafood restaurant to get a meal that includes things like red snapper and grouper.....we see our seasons either dropped to an extremely low numbers of days that include extremely small bag limits...or a total closure of these same species all together.....but yet the commercial fisherman gets to not only fish for the species that are closed to sportsman, but they get to profit from it!!!!!!  I can't take my son offshore to catch snapper and grouper, but I can take him to a restaurant to order it...now come on, really????   and I am smart enuff to know thru personal experience that the American Red Snapper is doing extremely well......which is the point myself and every orther person that fishes offshore is jumping up and down about...the "science" that is being used to drive the low number of days, small harvest limits and total closures is absurd....and now add in that people are getting fed up with being micro managed and backed into corners....but we are suppose to sit back and just nod our heads and smile...NOT!!!!!   again, its all about perception, I'm not allowed but commercial fisherman can.....why not restrict commercial fishing for 2 years, and allow the recreational fisherman to harvest???  the commercial fisherman catch tons and tons of fish, so who is doing the real damage???  but since they do it for profit, that makes a difference.....get a common sense person to get their head wrapped around that one....

I am in no way pointing any fingers at people that guide for a living, I know its a tough existance, and the rules that irritate the weekend angler has hampered your business also.....

Its just hard to see flawed science + ignorance dictate  policy on such a great resource...


----------



## Bryannecker (Mar 31, 2012)

*I agree with you Captain: NO CLASS WARFARE, PLEASE*



Capt. Scott Griffin said:


> Can you explain this to me.   How are Charter groups or guides being looked after very well...last time I checked we follow the same regs as Recreational fishermen..



As I stated/_Supra_
"_It is now even more true, and the sad fact is that the "select few" will be the bureaucrats down at the CRD/DNR who compile that so-called science. We will now be at the mercy of those folks. 

Maybe in some folks mind, Georgia won, but it may be that all saltwaterfishermen lost or will lose in the near future when this sweeping law goes into effect_."

Divide and conquer is the mantra of the left, and I might add our ruling class.  Do not fall for it.  We must be united in opposition to over regulation or we will fall victim to that tryanny.  Do not single out other fishermen.  We are all under attach.  Charter captains and guides are just the same as you as a recreational fisherman.  I know that to be a fact in that I used to be a licensed captain for over fifteen years and now am a recreational fisherman.  My outlook has not altered.  The government is over the line and must be stopped.  Let that be our battle cry!!!
Capt. Jimmy  
_P/S: NO CLASS WARFARE, PLEASE!!!_


----------



## Danny Leigh (May 1, 2012)

*Advisory panel nominations*

http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/GADNR-3e4b1c 

DNR Seeks Nominees for Finfish Advisory Panel
Brunswick, Ga. (5/1/2012)
Commissioner Mark Williams has announced formation of a Finfish Advisory Panel to provide guidance to the Coastal Resources Division (CRD) in matters related to management of saltwater finfish species such as spotted seatrout and red drum. Like the Blue Crab Advisory Panel and Shrimp Advisory Panel, this group will be a subcommittee of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Council. The members will be appointed by Commissioner Williams for a term of two years based on recommendations from CRD staff.
The new 12-member panel will consist of six recreational anglers - two residing in Chatham, Bryan or Liberty; two from McIntosh, Glynn or Camden and two at-large members, who reside in a non-coastal county.  Individuals to be considered for one of these seats cannot have a commercial fishing license. Three members will be licensed saltwater fishing guides - one from Chatham, Bryan or Liberty counties; one from McIntosh, Glynn, or Camden; and one at-large member, who can reside in any Georgia county. Eligible fishing guides must have been licensed for the previous two years and possess all other state and federal permits, as required.  Two members will be licensed commercial fishermen who reside in Georgia. Each must have possessed a Georgia commercial fishing license during the previous two years, have reported landings of finfish, and must possess all other state and federal permits, as required. The final member will be a non-DNR scientist experienced with saltwater fish population dynamics and management and affiliated with a non-governmental organization or academic institution based in Georgia.
“The department places great value on input from the regulated community through our advisory panels. These individuals offer unique perspective and knowledge that enhances the effectiveness of our conservation efforts,” said Spud Woodward, director of CRD. “Our other advisory panels have helped us advance the management of blue crab and shrimp, and I look forward to working with this new panel to do the same thing for saltwater finfish.”


"Interested persons should complete and submit the Marine Fisheries Advisory Council Questionnaire (application) along with a cover letter to Kathy Knowlton at CRD. Applications are available at the CRD Headquarters in Brunswick or click her for the Application from the CRD website or click the attachment below. 
Applications must be received or postmarked no later than June 15, 2012. Individuals selected to serve on the Advisory Panel will be notified in early August after which a joint meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Council and Finfish Advisory Panel will be convened.


----------



## Bryannecker (May 2, 2012)

Good Luck, 
Glad I was able to help get angler representation from the coastal counties on that advisory board.  What impact they will have remains to be seen!
Capt. Jimmy


----------



## gtfisherman (May 2, 2012)

Congrats. We were sold out yet again.

Science and DNR being linked in the same notion is the equivalent of Jumbo Shrimp. For all those who supported this... Just wait. Just wait till we face no fishing because some group believes it harms the red snapper too much. Not catch and release... But no fishing as in some areas of the keys. 

You can't give this kind of responsibility to the gov't. Been to the post office or the DMV??? Tried getting a building permit? Hey what about building a lake somewhere??? 

Yeah. Let's give these "people" more power...


----------

