Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Thoughts

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ballard's Landing
    Posts
    15,189

    Default Thoughts

    I have mixed feelings on things like this.
    Hand One: State Gov decides to introduce an invasive, non-native species. A species proven to be egg feeders. A species proven to be dominant over the native brook trout.
    An argument can be made that rainbow/brown stockings in the 1960s decimated the native brookie populations.
    Tax payer dollars pay for everything from the hatchery to the fuel for trucks to stock.
    The state implements regulations on a non-native, invasive species, and issues citations against citizens for violations.

    Hand Two: the intro of these non natives provide recreational opportunities for folks that may have depended on brook trout as a part of their daily diet.

    In a nutshell: our state IS introducing an invasive non native species proven to be detrimental to native species in rural, poverty stricken areas. Areas where sustenance fishing regularly takes place. Is it right to force people to pay for the introduction of an invasive species, set regulations on said species, knowing that sustenance fishing takes place, then fining them money they likely canít afford for just trying to eat?
    Does the cast net make a difference?
    I can eat a half dozen 12 inch trout.
    Can a family of 6 eat 30?



    HmmmÖ.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Be proactive about improving public waterfowl habitat in South Carolina. It's not going to happen by itself, and our help is needed. We have the potential to winter thousands of waterfowl on public grounds if we fight for it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Orangeburg
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Ditto for the blue catfish.
    Christian Southern White Heterosexual Gun-Toting Male (The world's most hated minority)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Gilbert, SC
    Posts
    22

    Default

    I can't speak in regards to the fishery in the Upper Saluda but I certainly disagree with the management of the trout fishery in the lower Saluda. I believe it was back in 2018 when DNR held a couple of meetings seeking public input for adopting a no take trout fishery from the I-26 bridge to Stacey's ledge. I attended one of the meetings and appeared to be one of the few present in opposition. To be honest, they tried the end the meeting before I could speak up since they thought everyone there was in support of the measure. When I spoke up I explicitly mentioned that the trout in this section on river were technically non-native invasive species. I was quickly informed that they are not considered by DNR to be invasive in that area since they have to stock them to maintain a viable population, and that if left to their own devices would eventually die out (this came from one of the DNR heads of fisheries). I was also told that they wanted to protect this section of river because the conditions in this area were perfect for trout to spawn (fine gravel bottom). They even said that they had found evidence that trout were reproducing in the Lower Saluda because they had discovered trout fry that were smaller than the size they stock in the river. I mentioned that this entire fishery was artificial and from it's inception was designed to be put and take. The agreed with that, but countered with how uncommon something like this is and how they would like to see it protected so they can conduct further research.

    I came away from the meeting feeling quite disappointed for many reasons. I was primary disappointed because they acknowledged that they are trying to protect a non-native species that would have never even survived there if the lake was never created. I also was disappointed because I got the impression that they were trying to get legislation passed so they could conduct a science project unhindered. Through out the entire meeting it seemed like DNR in conjunction with the TU members there were telling us what was going to happen with the fishery rather than truly getting the public's input. It really flabbergasted me when I saw that the legislature had passed legislation protecting that section of river which actually ended up extending the zone past the I-26 bridge to the I-20 bridge. Luckily the regulations don't affect me since I don't even keep the trout I catch. However, the whole ordeal really disappointed me since these scientists ignored basic scientific principals in regards to introducing and protecting non-natives species and seemed to brush off opinions counter to theirs.
    Last edited by Hunting310; 05-25-2023 at 08:47 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Clarendon County
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    Sounds like an interesting court case.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Providence
    Posts
    5,863

    Default

    In a nut shell, no one is sustenance hunting or fishing in 2023. People stricken with “poverty” have opportunities to eat better than me off the sweat of my back.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ballard's Landing
    Posts
    15,189

    Default

    And to add to the crazy….

    DNR stocks non native rainbow and brown trout in a 9 mile stretch of the lower Saluda river below the Lake Murray dam.
    50k fish each year. Paid for by tax dollars, with nary a public input.
    For 22 years we paid to stock these invasive fish, in the spring, in known striped bass spawning grounds, and allowed the citizens of SC to harvest 5 fish per person per day.
    A few years back, they decided that while it was still ok for us to keep 5 exotic fish per day, it was illegal for us to catch them and use them for live bait to catch a quality striper…
    Fast forward another 5 years, due to some alleged invasive species breeding (despite the fact they are supposed to be stocked sterile due to rigorous testing at Walhalla) another law is passed deeming it illegal to keep exotic fish in a certain section of the river in the event that they may be sucessfully breeding.
    Be proactive about improving public waterfowl habitat in South Carolina. It's not going to happen by itself, and our help is needed. We have the potential to winter thousands of waterfowl on public grounds if we fight for it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    GreenHood
    Posts
    13,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whackumstackum View Post
    In a nut shell, no one is sustenance hunting or fishing in 2023. People stricken with “poverty” have opportunities to eat better than me off the sweat of my back.
    This
    Houndsmen are born, not made

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    I STAND WITH DUCK CUTTER!
    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    I knew it wasn't real because no dogbox...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ballard's Landing
    Posts
    15,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whackumstackum View Post
    In a nut shell, no one is sustenance hunting or fishing in 2023. People stricken with “poverty” have opportunities to eat better than me off the sweat of my back.
    Lol bo, I know you’re new to the country, and Providence is a world apart from the busy streets of the Mount Pleasant that you know and love.
    But I encourage you to venture out and see the real rural South.
    Them old black ladies on 5 gallon buckets fishing under bridges along 4 holes swamp bridges, and those snaggle-toothed redneck men in the mountains you deem “meth heads” might not be there just to pass the time.

    There’s a reason DNR doesn’t mess with em. Look up sustenance fishing.
    Be proactive about improving public waterfowl habitat in South Carolina. It's not going to happen by itself, and our help is needed. We have the potential to winter thousands of waterfowl on public grounds if we fight for it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Clarendon County
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    The lady that sat with with my grandmother told me she hated fish because when she was little they ate them every day, and not because they wanted to.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Providence
    Posts
    5,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOGSTER View Post
    Lol bo, I know you’re new to the country, and Providence is a world apart from the busy streets of the Mount Pleasant that you know and love.
    But I encourage you to venture out and see the real rural South.
    Them old black ladies on 5 gallon buckets fishing under bridges along 4 holes swamp bridges, and those snaggle-toothed redneck men in the mountains you deem “meth heads” might not be there just to pass the time.

    There’s a reason DNR doesn’t mess with em. Look up sustenance fishing.
    You must be high as fuck.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Gilbert, SC
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOGSTER View Post
    And to add to the crazy….

    DNR stocks non native rainbow and brown trout in a 9 mile stretch of the lower Saluda river below the Lake Murray dam.
    50k fish each year. Paid for by tax dollars, with nary a public input.
    For 22 years we paid to stock these invasive fish, in the spring, in known striped bass spawning grounds, and allowed the citizens of SC to harvest 5 fish per person per day.
    A few years back, they decided that while it was still ok for us to keep 5 exotic fish per day, it was illegal for us to catch them and use them for live bait to catch a quality striper…
    Fast forward another 5 years, due to some alleged invasive species breeding (despite the fact they are supposed to be stocked sterile due to rigorous testing at Walhalla) another law is passed deeming it illegal to keep exotic fish in a certain section of the river in the event that they may be sucessfully breeding.
    I legitimately had no clue that the trout they stock were supposed to be sterile. If that is the case, it is mighty interesting how that tidbit was conveniently left out at the meeting. Wish I would have known that then to ask more questions.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    19,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whackumstackum View Post
    You must be high as fuck.
    Actually he has nothing more else to do with his time.
    More fuel = more boost!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Bogster not sure where you live or what you do but the percentage you talk about is probably less than 1%.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sandy Run
    Posts
    2,631

    Default

    The lower saluda situation was 100% TU. I grew up fishing that section of the river for trout. After the housing development that was built that you can see on the bluff where 26 crosses the river is when the problems started. Part of that construction was a walking path down by the river and two gazebos. It gave easy access to that section of the river and people started parking in that neighborhood to get to the river. Those rich people didnít like that or the trash down by the river. There were paths already there from fishermen and river rats for years. TU made a deal with the neighborhood council that if their members could park then they would do a trash pickup twice a year. Anyone else parking got tickets and or towed. TUís own private trout grounds in cola was born. Fast foward to present and the city/state was extending the river walk up the other side of the river. TU fly fishermen didnít want the rednecks coming back, as you can walk and wade across that section when the water is low and good for trout fishing. I used to do just that. Thus, TU got that section designated catch and release as most rednecks want to eat them not just catch them.

    All about money and greed. And not just any TU member could park. Only select TU members got permission for which you had to apply. A membership with in a membership that was highly selective. Money talks.

    Fuck TU. As bad as tamie operations.
    Last edited by mello_collins; 05-26-2023 at 05:22 AM.


    If a man is alone in the woods, says something, and a woman does not hear, is he still wrong?

    Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. óGeorge Carlin

    Common sense is not a gift. It's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone else who doesn't have it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    In My Truck
    Posts
    3,536

    Default

    per Emily Cope The SCDNR does not always use scientific research or science to base decisions for wildlife.
    Windows Down!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    12,302

    Default

    When there is a meeting "for public input", the decisions have long been made and they orchestrate the meeting so they can deflect criticism later. They are the ones that get to tally and report on the "consensus" for their decisions. Sort of like a politician saying he/she has had many voters contact them to support their actions.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Columbia
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mello_collins View Post
    The lower saluda situation was 100% TU. I grew up fishing that section of the river for trout. After the housing development that was built that you can see on the bluff where 26 crosses the river is when the problems started. Part of that construction was a walking path down by the river and two gazebos. It gave easy access to that section of the river and people started parking in that neighborhood to get to the river. Those rich people didn’t like that or the trash down by the river. There were paths already there from fishermen and river rats for years. TU made a deal with the neighborhood council that if their members could park then they would do a trash pickup twice a year. Anyone else parking got tickets and or towed. TU’s own private trout grounds in cola was born. Fast foward to present and the city/state was extending the river walk up the other side of the river. TU fly fishermen didn’t want the rednecks coming back, as you can walk and wade across that section when the water is low and good for trout fishing. I used to do just that. Thus, TU got that section designated catch and release as most rednecks want to eat them not just catch them.

    All about money and greed. And not just any TU member could park. Only select TU members got permission for which you had to apply. A membership with in a membership that was highly selective. Money talks.

    Fuck TU. As bad as tamie operations.

    This.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    united states of america
    Posts
    21,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raybird View Post
    per Emily Cope The SCDNR does not always use scientific research or science to base decisions for wildlife.
    Scientific data is always slanted to support someone's opinion.

    "Science" is the editorial page of wildlife management

    "Scientists" are usually democrats.

    Careful what you wish for.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    9,399

    Default

    I will say it Is odd for most of the state, but there are parts that Boggster rides that legit substance fishing is taking place. I will vouch for him on that.

    And good for them rather than sitting on their ass waiting on their "check" too arive. They are at least going out and trying to catch a meal.
    Inspector Gadget
    Inspector Gadget
    Inspector Gadget
    Inspector Gadget
    Go, Gadget Go!
    Go, Gadget Go!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    In My Truck
    Posts
    3,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sportin' Woodies View Post
    Scientific data is always slanted to support someone's opinion.

    "Science" is the editorial page of wildlife management

    "Scientists" are usually democrats.

    Careful what you wish for.
    the whole system is so fucked up it doesn’t matter what anyone says except the guy with the $$.
    Windows Down!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •