TWRA Requesting Public Input
Started by
Guest_jblaylock_*
, Apr 16 2014 10:18 AM
92 replies to this topic
#1
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:18 AM
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is accepting welcoming comments for its 2015 fishing regulations.
Public comments will be considered by fisheries managers and may be presented as proposals for regulation changes.
Comments may be submitted by mail to: Fish Comments, TWRA, Fisheries Management Division, P.O. 40747, Nashville, TN 37204 or emailed to TWRA.Comment@tn.gov.
Please include "Fish Comments" on the subject line of emailed submissions.
The fishing regulations are usually set each year during the October meeting by the Tennessee Fish and Wildlife Commission.
This comment period concerning fishing regulations will be open until May 6, 2014.
#2
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 16 April 2014 - 12:47 PM
So Josh, does this mean that comments would have to be from someone in state and a fisheries manager?
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#3
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 April 2014 - 01:01 PM
So Josh, does this mean that comments would have to be from someone in state and a fisheries manager?
I think it means that the public comments will be reviewed by a fisheries manager. I just copy-pasted the text.
https://news.tn.gov/node/12226
#4
Guest_fritz_*
Guest_fritz_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 08:49 AM
The agency accepts comments from the public and these are then reviewed by the fisheries managers
#5
Guest_daveneely_*
Guest_daveneely_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 10:03 AM
This is your opportunity to make your thoughts known if you're not happy with the near-total closure of keeping Tennessee's non-game fishes in captivity.
Be respectful, but state your points clearly. All comments will be reviewed...
Be respectful, but state your points clearly. All comments will be reviewed...
#6
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 17 April 2014 - 10:15 AM
Dave, you are there in state... do you think it would have any impact for out of state people to submit comments? Or do you think it would have any impact for NANFA to submit something? Or would that be perceived as "outsiders" trying to tell them what to do? I would appreciate your perspective here on what might work best. We all know that TN has a great fish diversity and resource, it seems a shame that we are prohibited from responsible collecting for live capture.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#7
Guest_daveneely_*
Guest_daveneely_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 12:26 PM
If enough people express displeasure with the current regulations, yes, they might consider some compromise position.
#8
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 12:49 PM
I plan on commenting.
Before the prohibition on keeping of sub-game fish, I was an eco-tourist making one or two weekend trips to TN per year. In 200x, took the wife, kids and grandkids and stayed a week near Crossville, and went looking for native fish a couple of times. Since the prohibition, have not done any of that, and have been spent my travel dollars elsewhere. Other than Chattanooga which I really like, TN is no longer on my list of desirable vacation destinations. On the way back from the NANFA convention in KY, I would not even stop for gas, a snack or a toilet break in TN, because I had fish in the vehicle. So there is an economic impact of this ban, and that's a leverage point.
I fully understand that TN has a large number of rare fish species, some listed, some not, and that the average fish & wildlife officer in the field will not be an expert at ID'ing non-game fish. Nevertheless, the rule they implemented seems overly broad compared to the (documented scope of the) problem. While fish collectors could potentially cause harm to populations of endemics, IMO the record is pretty clear that 90%+ of species-at-risk are due to habitat damage/alteration, not hunting/fishing/collecting pressures. (Unfortunately, commercial fisheries are an exception to that generality.) My view is that any outdoor activities that contribute to appreciation of natural diversity build public momentum to preserve and restore natural environments. Trying to fix things after they're broken is unbelievably expensive, e.g., Everglades restoration, if even possible.
It would not be difficult to at least equip the wildlife officers with HUC-level lists and pictures of fish at risk. All the wildlife officers seem to have laptops and mobile communications gear in their vehicles these days.
Also I understand that TN passed a constitutional provision about hunting and fishing rights, although I don't know any details. That might be worth researching too.
Before the prohibition on keeping of sub-game fish, I was an eco-tourist making one or two weekend trips to TN per year. In 200x, took the wife, kids and grandkids and stayed a week near Crossville, and went looking for native fish a couple of times. Since the prohibition, have not done any of that, and have been spent my travel dollars elsewhere. Other than Chattanooga which I really like, TN is no longer on my list of desirable vacation destinations. On the way back from the NANFA convention in KY, I would not even stop for gas, a snack or a toilet break in TN, because I had fish in the vehicle. So there is an economic impact of this ban, and that's a leverage point.
I fully understand that TN has a large number of rare fish species, some listed, some not, and that the average fish & wildlife officer in the field will not be an expert at ID'ing non-game fish. Nevertheless, the rule they implemented seems overly broad compared to the (documented scope of the) problem. While fish collectors could potentially cause harm to populations of endemics, IMO the record is pretty clear that 90%+ of species-at-risk are due to habitat damage/alteration, not hunting/fishing/collecting pressures. (Unfortunately, commercial fisheries are an exception to that generality.) My view is that any outdoor activities that contribute to appreciation of natural diversity build public momentum to preserve and restore natural environments. Trying to fix things after they're broken is unbelievably expensive, e.g., Everglades restoration, if even possible.
It would not be difficult to at least equip the wildlife officers with HUC-level lists and pictures of fish at risk. All the wildlife officers seem to have laptops and mobile communications gear in their vehicles these days.
Also I understand that TN passed a constitutional provision about hunting and fishing rights, although I don't know any details. That might be worth researching too.
#9
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:01 PM
Also ... in my experience, just complaining about a govt rule rarely gets anything changed.
What works is proposing a BETTER rule, and explaining how it's better than the existing regulations.
I assume the existing rules were implemented largely because officers in the field can't identify at-risk species of darters, minnows & madtoms, which makes enforcement of regulations for the unlawful taking of specific proscribed species very difficult. Is there a workable and reasonably effective solution for that ?
What works is proposing a BETTER rule, and explaining how it's better than the existing regulations.
I assume the existing rules were implemented largely because officers in the field can't identify at-risk species of darters, minnows & madtoms, which makes enforcement of regulations for the unlawful taking of specific proscribed species very difficult. Is there a workable and reasonably effective solution for that ?
#10
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 02:18 PM
When I lived near Lake Erie as a child, I remember the posters and fliers about how to recognize the round goby. We had a law at the time (I have no idea if it's still the law or if it's changed since I moved away) to kill the invasive round goby on sight. It was illegal to toss it back into the water if you caught one. So it was very important for local fishers to ID them properly, so ID fliers and signs were everywhere. They were very simple, with a large illustration like this:
http://www.seagrant....u/ais/roundgoby
http://www.seagrant....s/gobies_invade
The result is that we had a 'kill on sight' law that people felt comfortable implementing. Your average everyday fisherperson, using only the information from that simple image on the sign near the fishing hole, was able to feel comfortable making a decision to terminate a life. Everybody knew what a goby looked like. Look for the black dot. Look for the suction cup. It has a black dot? Kill it. One of my earliest memories ever is taking home a round goby in a styrofoam cup because I didn't want them to stomp on it on the pier.
If you made the same sort of signs but for the endangered species, it is not difficult to educate the public. Other states do it all the time. Just pick something simple and completely exclusionary, like a suction cup fin or teeth on a leaf whorl.
Example:
http://www.thewildcl...cies/Elodea.htm
http://www.seagrant....u/ais/roundgoby
http://www.seagrant....s/gobies_invade
The result is that we had a 'kill on sight' law that people felt comfortable implementing. Your average everyday fisherperson, using only the information from that simple image on the sign near the fishing hole, was able to feel comfortable making a decision to terminate a life. Everybody knew what a goby looked like. Look for the black dot. Look for the suction cup. It has a black dot? Kill it. One of my earliest memories ever is taking home a round goby in a styrofoam cup because I didn't want them to stomp on it on the pier.
If you made the same sort of signs but for the endangered species, it is not difficult to educate the public. Other states do it all the time. Just pick something simple and completely exclusionary, like a suction cup fin or teeth on a leaf whorl.
Example:
http://www.thewildcl...cies/Elodea.htm
#11
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 April 2014 - 02:34 PM
I e-mailed my comment to TWRA.Comment@tn.gov with 'fish comments' as the title. I basically said:
1) TN is losing my tourism dollars
2) I would not live in TN or any state that prohibited me from keeping native fish as a pet.
I didn't suggest the signs.
1) TN is losing my tourism dollars
2) I would not live in TN or any state that prohibited me from keeping native fish as a pet.
I didn't suggest the signs.
#12
Guest_Casper_*
Guest_Casper_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 April 2014 - 11:49 AM
This is days away.
As the current Tennessee NANFA Rep i would like to write a letter and ask those among us who agree to its contents to provide your name and city and state and i will print the letter out with ALL our names attached and mail it to the TWRA address that is provided. I will also email it.
It would be good to have every BoD member included. I would like to see as many NANFA names as possible on this letter. Just your name and city, state. Not street address.
I have just returned from a couple adventures so i will try and compose a good letter within the next few days.
Casper
As the current Tennessee NANFA Rep i would like to write a letter and ask those among us who agree to its contents to provide your name and city and state and i will print the letter out with ALL our names attached and mail it to the TWRA address that is provided. I will also email it.
It would be good to have every BoD member included. I would like to see as many NANFA names as possible on this letter. Just your name and city, state. Not street address.
I have just returned from a couple adventures so i will try and compose a good letter within the next few days.
Casper
#13
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 18 April 2014 - 12:11 PM
That's a great idea. I am in! Let me know if you need my help.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#14
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 April 2014 - 12:24 PM
That's a great idea Casper
#15
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 April 2014 - 01:26 PM
I already e-mailed my own comments, but count me in Casper.
#16
Guest_fritz_*
Guest_fritz_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 April 2014 - 11:48 AM
When you request something to be changed, it's always better to reference the actual law or section in the regulation book in your comments. Rather than a generic - I don't like it comment.
What I've found so far is in the Regulations, Under Live Bait, is Section 3 : Class C Bait Fish. http://www.eregulati...hing/live-bait/
My interpretation is that we can still collect bait fish, they just can't be taken away from that stream. The same restrictions do not hold for Class A and B bait fish.
I am correct in my interpretation? I urge all to get involved.
What I've found so far is in the Regulations, Under Live Bait, is Section 3 : Class C Bait Fish. http://www.eregulati...hing/live-bait/
My interpretation is that we can still collect bait fish, they just can't be taken away from that stream. The same restrictions do not hold for Class A and B bait fish.
I am correct in my interpretation? I urge all to get involved.
#17
Guest_Kanus_*
Guest_Kanus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:40 PM
Casper, absolutely put my name on there. I live within close range to TN and there is a lot I would LOVE to see in the state, but the only time I ever go to TN is to cut across the ridge and valley to get back up into Virginia. I too would be spending tourism dollars in TN if this rule were changed. I plan on submitting a comment on my own as well. Glad to see that they have a process for reviewing public comments. This is our one chance to have our voices heard on this matter and I hope we can rally enough support for a change that they may consider it.
#18
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 19 April 2014 - 01:01 PM
When you request something to be changed, it's always better to reference the actual law or section in the regulation book in your comments. Rather than a generic - I don't like it comment.
What I've found so far is in the Regulations, Under Live Bait, is Section 3 : Class C Bait Fish. http://www.eregulati...hing/live-bait/
My interpretation is that we can still collect bait fish, they just can't be taken away from that stream. The same restrictions do not hold for Class A and B bait fish.
I am correct in my interpretation? I urge all to get involved.
I thought that is what I was reading as well Mr. President. Seems that you can seine as many class C baitfish as you want... you just can't put them in a cooler and take them away from the stream while they are still alive. You could on the other hand use them as bait, or eat them, or anything else.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#19
Guest_keepnatives_*
Guest_keepnatives_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 April 2014 - 03:48 PM
Count me in as well Casper.
#20
Guest_Mike_*
Guest_Mike_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 April 2014 - 06:21 PM
Count me in too Casper
Mike Berg
Cedar Lake, IN
Indiana NANFA Rep.
Mike Berg
Cedar Lake, IN
Indiana NANFA Rep.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
