| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
steelytom
Senior Member
1491 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2012 : 09:51:28 AM
|
I sent the following message to Senator Cromer, Chairman of the Fish, Game and Forestry Commitee. I ask that you take a minute to do the same (I stole this from Jim Gibbs and altered it a little when I sent it):
Dear Senator Cromer,
I hope that you and yours are well. It has come to my attention that Senator Gregory has introduced legislation to limit the number of rods fished from a boat to a maximum of six regardless of the number of anglers onboard. I and many of my colleagues find this to be overly restrictive. There has been much effort and many sources referenced in the recent revamp of chapter thirteen and I do not feel that this legislation is warranted. The restriction to six rods would unfairly limit Striped Bass anglers, especially the professional guides. I would ask that S 1194 be defeated. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Gibbs
President, Midlands Striper Club
I hope that all of us can find time to contact Senator Cromer to express our concern.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/email.php?T=M&C=438636311
Senator Gregory wants to limit the number of rods to 6 per boat. (NOTE: The words "unlimited number of" failed to be stricken...and this will be edited out.)
S. 1194
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Senator Gregory
Document Path: l:\council\bills\swb\5125cm12.docx
Introduced in the Senate on February 8, 2012
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry
Summary: Fishing from a boat
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/8/2012 Senate Introduced and read first time (Senate Journal-page 7)
2/8/2012 Senate Referred to Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry
(Senate Journal-page 7)
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
2/8/2012
(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
A BILL
TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-625, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TAKING OF NONGAME FISH, THE USE OF GAME FISHING DEVICES, AND THE USE OF FISHING DEVICES BY A FISHERMAN FISHING FROM A BOAT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A FISHERMAN FISHING FROM A BOAT IS LIMITED TO USING SIX GAME FISHING DEVICES IF ALL PERSONS IN THE BOAT OLDER THAN SIXTEEN YEARS HAVE VALID FISHING LICENSES.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Section 50-13-625 of the 1976 Code, as added by an Act bearing ratification number 121 of 2012, is amended to read:
"Section 50-13-625. Nongame fish may be taken with any lawful game fishing device. A fisherman may use only four game fishing devices. A fisherman fishing from a boat may use an unlimited number of six game fishing devices if all persons in the boat older than sixteen years have valid fishing licenses."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
|
|
|
boatpoor
Senior Member
770 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 10:16:40 AM
|
| the way I read it it is 6 rods per fisherman! Thats plenty and most of the time more than one man can handle! Read it as written on your post!I am not a lawyer and we might need one to read this!!!! |
 |
|
|
Mixed Nutz
Senior Member
3508 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 1:27:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by boatpoor
the way I read it it is 6 rods per fisherman! Thats plenty and most of the time more than one man can handle! Read it as written on your post!I am not a lawyer and we might need one to read this!!!!
Same here: "A fisherman fishing from a boat may use an unlimited number of six game fishing devices".
Looks like 6 poles per man, not boat?
I'm still not in favor of the amendment though!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
|
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 11:56:04 AM
|
I 100% oppose this regulation and immediately sent Senator Gregory an email on Friday morning. I also plan to send him a registered letter and will be calling my local senator in Greer for a meeting. I just hope we can get an outpouring of complaints from our SC striped bass anglers.
For the record, there are already plans to strike the wording "unlimited number of". And you guys also left off the last part of the wording that requires all other people in the boat to have a liscense for the proposed 6-rod limit. The wording in this proposal is very confusing. Is the restriction per boat or per angler? Why would it require all others in the boat for the 6-rod limit? What is the restriction if one person does not have a liscense? As this moves through the legislative process other changes to the wording can and, most likely will take place. What will those changes do? Some I am sure will be to clear up the confusing part. But the last two times I battled this in SC the proposal was to limit the number of rods in a boat to 3-rods per person. Since that was the push both other times, it is not hard to believe that those forces will jump in and change the number to 3-rods per person versus 6-rods per boat.
I will not try and tell any of you what number of fishing devices are "plenty" for the technique you use. I have fished cut bait for many years. I use 24-rods and sit in one spot at a time for hours. I usually do not catch as many fish as my friends in the Midlands Striper Club catch using a couple of rods fishing live bait straight down. That is a technique they like to use. I just don't care for it like I like cut bait fishing. Two years ago my partner (Rocky Fulmer is the best I have ever fished with using down rods) and I could go through 15-dozen bait on Lake Murray fishing 1-rod each while down rod fishing. Even on Lake Murray I have fished 2-dozen rods on the bottom and with little exception, I can handle all of them fishing by myself. This restriction would force me to not be able to use the technique I like if it is per boat. Even if it were per person I would be required to bring 3 people with me at 6-rods per person. Why should I be required to bring extra people in my boat because of a regulation? Shouldn't that be my choice? Remember, if have 4-people in my boat instead of 2-people, that doubles the creel I can take out. And, if this number changes down to 3-rods per person, how will that effect the technique you are using. Largemouth fishermen use one rod at a time. Some striper techniques such as u-rigs and jigging use only 1-rod at a time. Should that weigh in and cause the rule to be 1-rod per angler? I surely hope not!
Below is the letter I have written and wil have delivered by registered mail to Senator Gregory.
Warren
To the Honorable Senator Chauncey K. Gregory,
Sir, I am a conservative republican that believes in limited government restriction on its citizens except where the regulations serve as a benefit. Since you promoted yourself as the same I hope you will give my question and concern some consideration.
Since the number of fish in our fishery are managed by creel limits, I am very interested to know why you are proposing a limit on the number of fishing devices used by people in a boat. This proposal would only serve as a method to restrict and reduce business and tax revenue. I use a technique called cut bait fishing for striped bass. I have purchased a large number of rods and reels all from SC businesses. I have two partners that fish with me and each of them also own dozens of rods. Every year we end up replacing some of this equipment. This brings revenue into SC. If I can only use 6-rod in my boat I probably will never need to purchase another rod and reel and I bet this will be the same for both of my partners.
We fish from a boat and we anchor in one spot fishing on the bottom. The law restricts others from coming within 50-feet of an anchored boat. Whether I have 6 rods out or 6-dozen rods out I am occupying the exact same space of the lakes bottom. So, my method of fishing has no restriction on others use of the water. And since the creel regulates what I take the number of rods have no impact on the fishery.
Another example of the loss of revenue for SC is from national fishing tournaments that bring striped bass and crappie fishermen to SC. This law would move these events to other states resulting in the loss of sales for gas, lodging, bait, food, etc.
Again, I hope you will give me the courtesy of explaiing exactly what the purpose and benefit of your S.1194 would accomplish for the state of SC and our fishery.
Respectfully submitted,
Waren Turner
Warren Turner
President, SBCC
Warren Turner
President, SBCC |
|
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 9:23:44 PM
|
Below is the email I sent to Senator Michael L. Fair, R-06 Greenville, and his quick reply.
Warren,
I am not a fisherman but have read much since this matter became a public
concern.You offer the most cogent argument representing your position on the
matter.
I respect your opinion and your position and will support you.
Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:54 PM, "scstriper1@aol.com" <scstriper1@aol.com> wrote:
To the Honorable Senator Michael L. Fair,
Sir, I am a conservative republican that believes in limited government restriction on its citizens except where the regulations serve as a benefit. I believe that S.1194 does not serve the good of
the citizens of SC and would like to meet with you to discuss my concerns.
Not only do I bring this concern as a SC resident and angler, I am president of the Greenville Striper Kings, a large group of South Carolinians who specifically target striped bass. Striper Kings have worked with the SC striped bass hatchery since 1991 completing several projects that have benefited our SC striped bass fishery for all SC residents and out of state visiters alike. Additionally, I am president of the Striped Bass Conservation Coalition which represents striped bass anglers across many states.
Since the number of fish in our SC fishery are managed by creel limits, I am very interested to know why Senator Gregory is proposing a limit on the number of fishing devices used by people in a boat.
This proposal would only serve as a method to restrict and reduce business and tax revenue.
As an angler, I use a technique called cut bait fishing for striped bass. I have purchased a large number of rods and reels all from SC businesses. I have two partners that fish with me and each of them also own dozens of rods. Every year we end up replacing some of this equipment. This brings revenue into SC. If I can only use 6-rod in my boat or even 6-rods per person, I probably will never need to purchase another rod and reel and I bet this will be the same for both of my partners.
When striped bass anglers fish cut bait, they fish from a boat and anchor in one spot fishing on the bottom for long periods of time. The law restricts others from coming within 50-feet of an anchored boat. Whether a boat has 6 rods out or 6-dozen rods out they are occupying the exact same space of the lakes bottom. So, this method of fishing has no restriction on others use of the water. And since the creel regulates what we take, the number of rods have no impact on the fishery.
Another example of the loss of revenue for SC is from national fishing tournaments that bring striped bass and crappie fishermen to SC. This law would move these events to other states resulting in the loss of sales for gas, lodging, bait, food, etc. I know this for a fact since I have organized tournaments across the country that have brought as many
as 400 anglers to a community for a weekend.
Again, I oppose this restriction and believe it serves no benefit to South Carolinians and ask that you meet with me and voice my opposition to the Senate Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.
Respectfully submitted,
Waren E. Turner
President, Striper Kings of Greenville
President, Striped Bass Conservation Coalition
Warren Turner
President, SBCC |
|
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 07:27:46 AM
|
I did not get a reply from Senator Gregory but here is the boiler plate reply that two of my friends got. Notice the comparison to the fairness to bank fishermen who have a limited number of rods and even the incorrect comment about trotlines hooks not being limited.
He said that he was urged by local crappie fishermen and he asked some Santee guides. If the crappie fishery on the Catawba is being exploited we need to get the legislators to ask the SCDNR.
---- Sen. Gregory's response -----
Fishermen -
I introduced this bill at the urging of local crappie fishermen who contend that folks using "spider rigging" are wiping out crappie beds on the Catawba. I also spoke to some Santee guides before introducing it and they said it would have no effect on how they operate. Obviously, you feel differently.
My intention is not to infringe on anyone's capacity to lawfully fish, but to try to preserve the resource. Obviously, there are vagaries in the laws and some good points were raised regarding this. As we know, the number of shore based rods is limited, but trot line hooks are not. I think that it is valid to question these discrepancies.
Points on a couple of other matters: Some content that the legislation is not necessary because of creel limits. However, DNR is down roughly from 300 officers to 200, so they are spread thin. Some counties have only one local officer. The constituents who ask me to introduce this bill know of spider riggers who are catching multiples of the limit and selling the fish w/o consequences.
Another point is that the bill may not be clear on the number of rods allowed. It is 6 per person, not 6 per boat. Perhaps that needs to be further clarified in the bill.
Anyway, I've been in the Senate long enough to know when a bill has a chance and when it doesn't. It is doubtful this bill will go any farther than a sub-committee hearing; much less the seven steps needed to become law. Nevertheless, I believe some spider-riggers - though not you - are the equivalent of market hunters from a century ago. If this bill isn't the best way to stop rouge fishermen then I would be interested in your ideas as to how to do so.
Greg Gregory
SC Senate
---- end of response ----
You can contact Sen. Greg Gregory at:
Business Phone (803) 212-6024 or (803) 289-6211
Email Form: Gregory, Chauncey K.
Columbia Address
606 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia, 29201
Home Address
P.O. Box 1381
Lancaster, 29721
Warren Turner
President, SBCC |
Edited by - SCStriper1 on 02/28/2012 3:16:20 PM |
|
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 09:30:43 AM
|
I finally got the same standard reply as others!
Warren Turner
President, SBCC |
Edited by - SCStriper1 on 02/28/2012 12:01:52 PM |
|
|
|
rasputensc
Senior Member
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 4:55:25 PM
|
Warren,
I haven't read every word in the last few posts, but.....the current law is, while fishing in a boat, there is no limit on the # of rods you use as long as everyone on the boat is licensed. However, when you take an unlicensed individual, every licensed angler is limited to 2 rods.
While I like Warren Turner, I don't like spider rigging for crappie. It makes it too easy to for violaters to take more than their fair share of the resource, not their fair share more quickly. I have heard all the arguments for and against limiting rods (a lot places limit all anglers to 2 devices) and I could argue both sides, but I don't find the Senator's proposal unreasonable or out of line. Of all striper anglers out there, I would think W.T. could figure out an alternative way to approach his sport and still enjoy it. We're just going to have to disagree on this one. |
|
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 6:26:38 PM
|
Scott,
It is ok to disagree, we will just have to agree to disagree. But I do have a question for you and others to think about!
Why should I (or you) have to figure out an alternative way to approach my sport if I am not the problem? Is the problem spider-rigging which is a multiple-rod approach to crappie fishing? Is the problem listed by Senator gregory really the number of rods used? The problem as provided by Senator Gregory is (perceived or factual) some individuals are violating the creel limit. In his reply Senator Gregory asks for us to come to him with a better solution than he has proposed and I respect this very much. His original solution is to restrict all law-abiding citizens because of a few bad (law breaking) apples. I did not like it when I was in school and the teacher punished the whole class because a few were disruptive. I do not like it at work today when the entire office has priviledges taken away because a few people do not follow the rules.
You state that spider-rigging makes it too easy "for violaters to take more than their fair share of the resource, not their fair share more quickly". You make my point with that statement. The issue is not the time it takes to break the law, but the fact that some are breaking the law. Making it less easy to break the law does not change a person who is inclined to break the law. The solution is to punish law breakers not law abiders! An honest citizen could have 1-fish over his limit by mistake. Do we take is boat, motor, truck, fishing equipment, and rights to fish for 10-years? No! But if, as the Senator stated, there is proof that some are abusing the sport and selling game fish then the punishment should be extremely severe. If an individual is caught and convicted of selling game fish than I support 100% the punishment of taking their boat, motor, truck, fishing equipment, and rights to fish for 10-years.
While I don't "like" to fish with umbrella rigs, I do not support the legislature taking that right away from those that do like to fish with u-rigs away.
I believe that the current SC restrictions on rods is 4-per person on land and in a boat unless all persons age 16 and older in the boat has a liscense and if all do then no limit. I also understand the need to restrict my number of rods when I am fishing from the shore because the shoreline is a limited space and who wants to take their kids to the state park to fish and find the only public access has a couple of people with 50-rods strung out 10-feet apart leaving no access for others. However, as I stated before whether I have 4-rods out or 4-dozen I am occupying the same space from a boat because no one can come within 50-feet of an anchored boat.
My concern is the erosion of the rights of law abidig citizens. We need to limit punish to the law breakers!
Warren Turner
President, SBCC |
|
|
|
Gut Wrench
Senior Member
2594 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 6:46:44 PM
|
I just want to know when all those Senators are sitting around and thinking of ways to make this state run better how a topic like this even gets brought up,this is so far fetched and it really does not have anything relevant to the running of the state,each and everyone of them should be fired ASAP,just a simple waste of tax payer time and money just to justify they have a job.
the things these Senators are coming up with be it local or in Washington is just beyond ridiculous.
Dear Senators you should be embarrassed.... |
|
|
|
SCStriper1
Junior Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 7:48:23 PM
|
The MSC, Striper Kings the SBCC and a representative for Crappie fishermen attended the SC Senate meeting today concerning S.1194. All present were opposed to the bill and the Senate listened. Senator Gregory told the Chairman that he was not interested in pushing the bill forward because he did not think it was the best way to solve the problem brought to him. We will continue to follow this and will keep you informed. Thanks to all that called and wrote letters and emails.
Warren
Warren Turner
President, SBCC |
|
|
|
steelytom
Senior Member
1491 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2012 : 09:43:52 AM
|
| Why didn't he just give his friends the number for operation game theft, 1-800-922-5431. If they don't even have enough officers to investigate reported poachers then they need to hire more officers. Jack up the penalties on the poachers and have that $ go to DNR. There should be plenty of money with license fees, registration fees, taxes on fishing/hunting equipment and fines. If not then raise the rates on the licenses. Make out of state licenses cost what that state would charge us. I went to PA steelhead fishing and it was $60 for a week license (license, trout stamp, and lake erie permit). When they come here they only have to pay $10. |
|
|
|
Curly Dog
Senior Member
410 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2012 : 5:50:58 PM
|
| I agree whole heartedly on raising out of state fees. It's going to be a long uphill battle getting autonomy for DNR but it's a battle well worth fighting! |
|
|
|
poboy
Senior Member
160 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:22:10 AM
|
me and my fishing buddys have been talking about this a lot---hopefully it will get shot down but we all know how out of touch our goverment is with reality--the question we have is this--we fish clarks hill-sc and ga share a reciprocal license agreement on this lake --will this bill allow ga residents to still use an unlimited number of rods per boat while sc license holders are limited to 6 per person? i can fish any part of the lake as can the ga fisherman-why should the legislation be any diffrent for the same lake or will there be an imaginary line down the river channel that changes the rod limit?--also the same scenario on hartwell and russell -doesnt seem right to me
84 HYDRA SPORT 1800SS
89 Yamaha 150
'BAD HABIT'
89 TRACKER 17 TX
MERC 50
'OL LEAKY' |
|
|
|
steelytom
Senior Member
1491 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:47:07 AM
|
| Senator Gregory already said he is not moving forward with this bill, too much objection. Seems like a dead issue for now. How about some fishing reports? Have not seen one for lake Murray this year, whats up with that? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
S. 1194 Sen. Gregory (6 rod limit per boat)
