dennysnook

BST Users
  • Content count

    2,192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dennysnook

  1. All depends how you read it. It was his opinion that the tarpon was not released alive and unharmed, because that is what the regulation states accompanied by the regulation that it may not be removed from the water. If you are removing the fish from the water and posing for a beach pic you are causing harm to the fish in his opinion. If that is the officers opinion on the case, then you get a citation. After that, the courts would have to decide. That is my opinion.
  2. 68B-32.001 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this rule is to manage tarpon as a catch and release only fishery in recognition and in honor of the rich cultural heritage of sport fishing for tarpon in Florida waters. F.A.C., a person may not harvest or unnecessarily destroy a tarpon within or without Florida Waters. (2) Temporary Possession by a Recreational Harvester (a) Except as provided in rule 68B-32.009, F.A.C. and paragraph (2)(b), a recreational harvester may not possess a tarpon within or without Florida Waters. (b) A person may temporarily possess a tarpon within or without Florida Waters only for the purposes of photography, measuring length and girth, and taking a scientific sample. 1. Except as provided in rule 68B-32.009, F.A.C. a recreational harvester who temporarily possesses a tarpon pursuant to this subsection shall release the tarpon alive and unharmed, immediately after photographing, measuring, or taking a scientific sample. (3) Except for tarpon harvested or possessed with the intent to submit that tarpon for state record or world record in accordance with subsection 68B-32.009(1), F.A.C. tarpon greater than 40 inches fork length may not be removed from the water. That is what this whole arguement is about direct from Florida law. Everything else is suggestions, not enforcable. Whether it is a big deal to you or not or if he gets a ticket or not justifies it as ok is besides the point. That is the way it is written however you chose to follow it.
  3. Nope. I just have alot of friends so you hear all the fishing gossip, all my social media feeds are fishing related, and my fishing partner is a Sheriff and they coordinate with FWC on cases. It's easier to point fingers at me though, because I comment my opinion and am well informed about it.
  4. Yes we can, but that's why I asked the fwc leuitantant back in 2013 when the rules came out, the guy who is gunna give me the ticket if I violate it, what it was by law and what constitutes removal. I got my answer and have followed that way since, because that is the opinion that matters not mine. I'm sure I will get blammed if someone gets a citation, called a rat and blamed for reporting because I comment on the subject here just like the other two cases, so will be sure to let you know if anything comes of it. Maybe my friends won't post as many pictures like this everyday, locally yesterday, if people actually take notice and start doing something about it.
  5. Not really. Know of two individuals who this occurred with regarding tarpon removal on the beach. One received a visit from FWC telling him not to do it again and the other a visit and a citation. You probably didn't hear about either one. Either way, I wouldn't be walking the fine line of what constitues removal from the water and broadcasting it if I didn't know for sure and had to ask if the fish is in the water or not. Can we atleast agree on that lol?
  6. How are we supposed to know? If he does, will there be a post advertising it? Can tell you this though, there has been a big buzz on social the last few days on the other species that is not supposed to be removed from the water. What is your take on that?
  7. Welcome to the madness. Alot of good info on this site you can learn from if you can weed through the bs at times. Your opinion is correct in my opinion. He was stating that the tarpon was not released alive and UNHARMED, which is what the regulation states. If he was an officer, he could enforce his OPINION and issue a citation because it is discretionary if he felt the fish was harmed. His basis would be removal from the water which it states in the regulations. That is the opinion that matters on this subject, but being the internet the debate otherwise will go on and on like the Energizer Bunny. You can't argue with stupid, but here we surely like to try and keep trying lol. October is a good month to be in Florida. On the East Coast mullet run should be in full swing, putting a multitude of species at your access. Feel free to message me if you want help getting pointed in the right direction for what you want to target or put it up in the Florida Forum.
  8. Good information for anyone interested in the breathing air part. Supplied by the same agency telling you not to remove them from the water coincidentally.
  9. Hopefully the guy who helped write the regulations has continued to follow this post, so he can further clarify them from "creative interpretation". If the intent is to keep the fish submerged with head and gills in the water as Levari noted, then that needs to be clarified for anyone who doesn't understand that fully or is looking for a loophole as I see it. Judging by the poll 17% think it's not in the water, and 13% don't know, but no one can debate that the fishes gills (plural) are in the water. In three seconds when the water is fully receded is the counter argument and usually what occurs, but regardless it needs to be clarified better so there is no room for any interpretation and 46 pages of argument about it.
  10. Illegal. Return to the resource. Same goes for any fish with a size limit, it must be landed in whole condition. Prevents anyone from mutilating a fish and saying a shark attacked it. Seen guys ticketed for cuting off heads of fish and cleaning sharks on the land because when fwc comes, they have to be able to measure it whole, otherwise it is considered altering the length of the fish
  11. Because you have made this entire post off topic with your desire to discredit myself and others who can see it for what it is. Everytime I post whether directed at you or not, you chime in with your two cents or lack there of so you aren't done. You just keep trolling until you get a reply. How do I make a living? You catch that post showing 400lbs of ladyfish? Well that is worth $600. Night before we did 20 less pounds. Next morning I got up and did a 75lb limit of red snapper at $6lb getting a 1/3 share and caught kingfish along with it and some mangrove snapper at $4lb. Did that for 2 days straight then supplied a local baitshop with 200 mojarra at .75 cents after I got off the boat yesterday. Do the math. I don't need to poach or sell tarpon and goliaths under the table to make a living when hard work and the knowledge to catch treats my pockets just fine. Once again I can disprove your bs theory of why I do what I do, so think of something better next time if you try and call me out or better yet add something of validity to the conversation so you don't keep looking like a tool.
  12. No accusations here lol? Lemme see I'm a poacher, a hypocrite because I commercial fish, an informant, and I certainly must be hiding something and selling tarpon if I give a crap about their survival. Your whole argument against me for standing firm on the subject has been a baseless attempt to fulfill your underlying hatred of commercial fishing or myself with some sort of justification. All you have done is conjure up theory to support that over and over, and everytime you have I prove you wrong. Did your wife leave you for a commercial fishermen or do you just hate the fact that people can take more of the resource than you? It couldn't be that I have been directly involved in the fishing scene for many years and witnessed how these fish actually get treated by some. Seen them beat to crap on rocks missing half their scales, cut up, and abused just to get plugs back, drug on the beach for 10 minute photo sessions while people setup angles, poses, and even change shirts and place lures in their mouths for advertisement sake. Drug back into the wash in rough conditions where you can't go in to revive and sent on their way to certain death after prolonged time out of the water. All of this is made possible because people refuse to follow the regulations and recommendations. So yes, when it comes to someone supporting bad practices and posting them, especially to the generation of fishermen we have now that follow, copy, and look up to guys in the spotlight, I have no problem standing up for something I believe that recognizing and changing will lead to less tarpon washing up dead. They are in a position to make a change that can influence alot of people and should want to. That's why I got involved and stayed involved despite the constant bs for arguing a point written in the regs to follow, by yourself and others. What have you done besides make yourself look like an internet moron?
  13. You don't need my help defending yourself you do just fine and the continual argument for fun is self explanatory, but if you are going to quote me I would appreciate it if you left the dumbass part in lol.
  14. Pretty much. It's up to the most undermaned enforcement agency out there to "do their job." We have 4 active agents in a 30 mile zone in my area, and certainly they have time to check SOL for minor infractions. If you try to influence others not to do it because the law says not to besides being best for the fish, then your a snitch, holier then thou, a hypocrite, etc. That's what I gather from the other side of this arguement
  15. I make time to argue for what I believe in and know to be true, not for some internet troll to try and poke holes in my credibility because you have nothing better to do and play detective dumbass on the reason I have officers numbers stored. Have about 500 numbers in my phone including the guy in the picture and the OP, which I had to stand up against to express my concerns and views on the subject here for all to see and actually like as people. I really hope someone comes to your local waters, tells the public how they should be fishing and how everyone fishes, and practices poor tactics for the survival of a fish that helped influence the passion you chose to follow in life. My guess judging by your character is that you wouldn't actually do anything about it, only sit and bitch about the guy who does.
  16. So when are we going to be smart enough to realize that people only use us when they need us? Asking for a friend. As far as I can see, the attempt to rectify the issue at hand is only being done because you realize the potential affect on your business, not the potential damage to the fishery which I argued for. No points have been made otherwise so why would I defend that? The major offender in those pictures was reading this post or the other a few days ago, so the message was sent. Being that he didn't chime in to defend himself, he most likely accepted his bad practice by the standards of the regs, and won't repeat the cycle. I've spent enough time defending this subject on social media for many years, on this post, and in person and been met with nothing but disdain. It gets old but once again I stand up for it. The issue received the traction here in the main, the frequent offenders know about it, and if people want to do something about it to change then they will.
  17. Maybe so, but that is not the case. They are protected and a responsible angler should want to follow the outlined practices by law and protect future fisheries. It doesn't matter, I am going to dinner with friends then going fishing too. Will be back if there is something of value in this post because now it has become argueing for nothing.
  18. Kil did not catch the fish in question. He broke no laws. Dennis (apparently) did catch this fish - the best I can figure is that he broke a suggestion to not photograph the fish. He didn't lift the fish up - he didn't "take" it out of the water - he didn't drag it up onto dry land. It appears he pulled it into the surf line and waited till a wave receded to get a picture. Not a violation of the harvest/possession law - at best, it seems he broke a "suggestion". Regardless, even if he filleted it on the beach and ate it's still liver...this site isn't like other social media sites, we don't allow people to attack others personally. This is a discussion forum - we have discussions. If someone wants to discuss something that angers them like respectful adults - please, be my guests and try to have a conversation. Angry tirades and foot stomping doesn't belong here - thanks TimS " Read it again, Scooby tagged it few days ago, and I even quoted myself from it in an earlier post. It's about the following of the regulations, which I advised as soon as a chimed in to contact me directly about and even talked to Dennis V directly to get his reasoning and told him in person about the regs and what is expected. I watch Goliath grouper eat hundreds of hooked gamefish a year now, something that has increased exponentially over the last ten years too btw. There is a lack of management to protect them based on a closure of a long time ago that has fully rebounded populations imo of what I see throughout Florida and by pop studies, and it some cases doing more harm then good to the other fish populations offsetting balance. They weren't always protected and it has been on discussion for years to open them back up in limited quantities. Tarpon are a pure gamefish and protected as such, that isn't going to change, but regardless I support the same release tactics based on fwc findings for both because it's the law. Something I defended Kil for once on for lack of knowledge by Florida standards, but clearly haven't done in this post because by this point you should know better and want to do better. The refusal to and justification of creates a stance I will not support and be vocal against, sorry. It only fits the pretty picture agenda, not the do what I can to ensure the fish lives agenda I do. Told him posting pics would create controversy as well, it's just me on the other end this time
  19. There you go again. You wouldn't ever think that those numbers were programmed in when you stood up against the district and lead the way to fight for fishermen's rights where I fish against a jetty closure, help clarify the goliath regs and consult fwc for one of the big picture whores to not get in trouble, and to consult and other commercial regulations. Either way, I don't care anymore, tell them I did it just like the last few times people actually got visits on this subject and blammed me when I didn't report. Atleast they never did it again.
  20. Seems to me you have a good understanding of fishing and ethics yet are still involved in and understand "the business." After the last few days of being active on my views and watching this post and the other, I wonder if the poll question was added "Would you no longer purchase a BH rod based on the way Kil handled the controversy, regardless of the pic" what the results would be.
  21. Remember you insist that the only reason that anyone gives a damn is because he posts about rods, they chose to target them at night with a plug they promote and post, and that the regulations and recommendations say otherwise and you support Z fully even though he clearly does things the same way too. Since the guy who wrote the regulations saw this and was appalled, I'm sure if they were in the wrong by law it will be forwarded to the proper authorities. If action is taken, the I jumped off a bridge because my friends were doing it too excuse isn't looking very good.
  22. As a matter of fact yes, I confronted a group of punk kids fishing just two nights ago. They were cast netting bait, pilchards and threadfins, taking the big baits they wanted and leaving the rest on the ground to die. When I noticed, not only did I give them an azz chewing on wasting bait, but told them to make sure it's put back in the water alive if they don't plan on using. One because its disrespectful to the park who has to clean it and the resource, and another because I have knowledge of an upcoming sting by fwc to help stop this common problem which I fully support too. Me and my fishing partner then spent 10 minutes kicking every bait left on the catwalk back as we left, dead tired after busting our butts all day to make a living mind you, to set an example for the kids. It is in my best interest as a commercial fishermen to protect the cast netting privileges we have, but I could of just left and walked past them leaving it for someone else. Showed them how we bring a plastic bin to sort bait and to release the rest quickly. They could of very well covered the place in bait after we left, and all the efforts were in vein, but I did my part on doing something to change it. Same as confronting kids out snagging protected spotted eagle rays for fun, and following them down the jetty giving them a mouthful on their wrongs and making sure they didn't kill it for nothing a few months ago as well as being vocal and involved on many, many other things throughout the years. I am no saint by any means, and sure you can find faults in my actions at times, but I know that I give a crap about the resources and regulations, and do my part to protect and uphold them. If I didn't I wouldn't be arguing about it at 2am when I have to get up at 530 for Red Snapper. Goodnight.
  23. You don't have to believe anything, it's the internet. But being that I am a commercial fishermen as you noted so it's not in common logic for you to expect me to have a conservative stance, have received threats by argueing on this, and yet I continue to in hopes to protect a gamefish and the better release practices for their survival, you might actually learn the truths behind the subject that I know if you chose to listen. I am not pelting anyone with stones, just trying to get people to understand the regs as they are written and why they were put in place so that they might actually follow them next time and set a better example for others.
  24. Should of said for, meaning they are a protected gamefish at catch and release only status, with protection as such. It's about guidelines and following them for the survival of the species, which despite some people's views, myself and many commercial fishermen are advocates for and for providing proper management and respecting the resources for future generations