# govt trying to make it where we have to get permits to camp at ft mcrae



## bbarton13 (May 4, 2009)

THE US GOVT WANTS TO CHANGE THE WAY YOU USE THE BEACH.
The Nat'l Parks Svc and the Gulf Islands Nat'l Seashore want to restrict where you can anchor, run and ground your boat in the Sound. 
Superintendent Dan Brown announced today that Gulf Islands National Seashore will hold two open houses to present the draft General Management Plan and to gather public input and comment.Once finalized, the plan will provide long-term management guidance for the national seashore. Two meetings will be held in October. (The only meeting for our area is today..the other meeting in in Mississippi)

Naval Live Oaks Visitor Center Visitor Center
1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway
Gulf Breeze, FL. 32563
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
3:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.

Here are some links for more info including the General Draft Management Plan
http://www.nps.gov/guis/parkne​ws/g...s-house-on-draft​-general-management-plan.htm
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/pr​ojectHome.cfm?projectID=11318

The next link is the plan itself...it is a lengthy PDF file
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/do​cument.cfm?parkID=384&projectI​D=11318&documentID=43031

If the changes they want are implemented it will change the way we use our beach for the next 15-20 year
Gulf Islands National Seashore Holds Opens House on Draft General Management Plan	



Subscribe | What is RSS 

Date: September 14, 2011 
Contact: Dan Brown, 850-934-2604 



Superintendent Dan Brown announced today that Gulf Islands National Seashore will hold two open houses to present the draft General Management Plan and to gather public input and comment.Once finalized, the plan will provide long-term management guidance for the national seashore. Two meetings will be held in October:

Naval Live Oaks Visitor Center Visitor Center

1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway

Gulf Breeze, FL. 32563

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

3:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.

William M. Colmer (Davis Bayou)

3500 Park Rd.

Ocean Springs, MS 39564

Thursday, October 20, 2011

3:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.

The draft plan and environmental impact statement will be available for public review during the period of September 9, 2011 - November 11, 2011 at the visitor centers above or on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/GUIS. Comments may be submitted electronically at the website above, by email at e-mail us, or by regular mail to: Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Attn:GUIS GMP, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32563, by November 11, 2011. Faxed comments and telephone messages will not be accepted. 

For additional information on the draft General Management Plan, contact the Superintendent's office at 850-934-2604 or by email at [email protected].


----------



## keperry1182 (Oct 6, 2010)

I just read the proposed plans and the requirement for a permit to camp is not going to change, that i can see. There are four plans, i read all four and none mentioned adding fees to camp or additional fees anyway that don't already exist, at least to the Ft. McCree area. The 3rd plan, which is the recomended plan actually increases the availability for private boat access to ft pickens, does not restrict boat access or backcountry camping activities (you're supposed to get a permit now, according to the GSNSS website), however it does reduce the road access to johnsons beach. The road would not go past the first parking lot where all the facilities are, and would be replaced by a multi use trail. The trail would be for emergency vehicle use only and would be a foot travel path for everyone else. On top of that a ferry is proposed as a method to reduce vehicle traffic under plan three, didn't see where it would launch and land, other than from the mainland to ft pickens, so i'm assuming it would launch from NAS. Looks like it could be benificial, I sent a comment about restricting road access to disabled and elderly people having a detrimental effect but other than that it looks pretty kosher to me.


----------



## keperry1182 (Oct 6, 2010)

Ok it's a 432 page doc so after further review i found the things you were talking about, they are alternatives to the plans that are recommended if the plans don't meet all the criteria put forth by this commitee or whatever it is. It would include a permit for camping system, which already exists, and you would be limited to anchoring in the seagrass beds that surround the Islands in order to protect them.


----------



## Dagwood (Oct 1, 2007)

Marty White was talking about this this morning on the radio. He said it's spearheaded by environmentalists trying to limit boat access to all shores. You would need a permit to pull your boat up to Ft. McRae and there would be lots of areas you could not pull your motorboat up to. Sounds like the government trying to take over another situation that they need to leave alone. I'm in favor of leaving everything like it is. How has the government getting more involved in red snapper season worked?


----------



## keperry1182 (Oct 6, 2010)

I am always if favor of less government involvement. But I can't see, reading it, how it's trying to restrict boaters, except in the grassbeds around the island. But I agree that they should just butt out of it.


----------



## chris592 (Jul 5, 2008)

But remember there is grassbeds all around the island..


----------



## jsims006 (Jun 15, 2011)

What does seagrass beds mean? That I wouldn't be able to beach my boat anymore on the shores? Or I would have to anchor off the beach?

Sorry, none of this makes any sense to me.


----------



## chevelle427 (Feb 6, 2011)

*don't worry, we are from the government=====we are here to help*


----------



## johnsonbeachbum (Oct 1, 2007)

keperry1182 said:


> Ok it's a 432 page doc so after further review i found the things you were talking about, they are alternatives to the plans that are recommended if the plans don't meet all the criteria put forth by this commitee or whatever it is. It would include a permit for camping system, which already exists, and you would be limited to anchoring in the seagrass beds that surround the Islands in order to protect them.


The only camping permit currently required for Johnson Beach to Fort McRee (to Pensacola Pass) is when you drive in via land vehicle and park your vehicle overnight within the JB park area. No fee.
Walk-in and boat-in camper do not require any camping permit.


----------



## keperry1182 (Oct 6, 2010)

OK I stand corrected


----------



## bbarton13 (May 4, 2009)

johnsonbeachbum said:


> The only camping permit currently required for Johnson Beach to Fort McRee (to Pensacola Pass) is when you drive in via land vehicle and park your vehicle overnight within the JB park area. No fee.
> Walk-in and boat-in camper do not require any camping permit.


i didnt read all of this, i just repeating what i heard on the radio.....thought id share


----------



## flappininthebreeze (Jul 13, 2009)

Sooo, the notice was released today for a meeting tonight, oh, and you need to read the 432 page document too. Typical. 
Regulatory efforts are increasingly directed toward denying all access and limiting all activity. Once they succeed, the agencies involved will cease to exist, because the revenues from permits, licenses and fees will be gone. Then we can go back to using the resources reserved for us in these parks and national seashore areas.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

If I read all this correctly they are trying to restrict traffic across turtle grass. Frankly, that's a good thing for fishermen. There are plenty of places on the islands without a grass bed on the way in.

This might keep the current turtle grass alive and well.

I'm in favor of MORE no motor zones on grass flats. 

Kayaks, Wading, and trolling motors do a lot less damage than an outboard.

Jim


----------



## keperry1182 (Oct 6, 2010)

jim t said:


> If I read all this correctly they are trying to restrict traffic across turtle grass. Frankly, that's a good thing for fishermen. There are plenty of places on the islands without a grass bed on the way in.
> 
> This might keep the current turtle grass alive and well.
> 
> ...


I agree


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Here's the reply I received from the Superintendent of GINS.
Gotta admit, I emailed him at 11pm last night so at least they read and answer your questions. His email if anyone is interested: [email protected]

":It would be helpful to focus on the section pertaining to the preferred alternative, Alternative three, on pages 103-119. We look forward to any comments you may have." Sincerely, Daniel R. Brown Superintendent Gulf Islands National Seashore 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway Gulf Breeze, FL 32563


----------



## outcast (Oct 8, 2007)

*park service proposal*

Pay close attention to the charts on page 109 of the proposal. This illustrates the areas that they want to close off to boat traffic. It is a large area of fishing grounds that we all like to fish. First they might limit motorized boat access then who knows maybe a total moratorium on fishing in these areas. The people in California did not belive it could happen and now they have no fishing zones all over the state. Just saying.


----------



## chevelle427 (Feb 6, 2011)

just another step towards total dependence on the government,
can grow your own food
cant hunt here
cant fish there
cant use well water if service is available or pay a impact fee
cant not have garbage service
cant let your grass get to high
and on and on and on


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Outcast is right.
When the government starts drawing boxes on maps, no good comes out of it...
Born and raised in Calif, so been there done that.

BillD


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Here's the map Tommy is referring to...

Jim


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

....


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Reading the associated pages I'm pretty sure I was correct, a No Motor Zone over the grass flats in the Gulf Islands National Seashore. (inside the yellow lines, NOT over the whole gridded area)

This WILL restrict fishing or transit from a boat in those areas without a electric trolling motor.


Jim


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Is that map from the preferred alternative? IOf so they want to close off approx 20 miles of beach access by boat, or basically all of it. 
They will buoy it off like what they already buoyed off. 
Total BS.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

NO! NOT the Gulf side beach! Only the yellow line on the sound/lagoon side over the grass flats to a couple hundred yards from the island. After 5 feet of depth or so the turtle grass doesn't normally survive. This ban would be on the North side of the barrier islands to a couple hundred yards off the island. 

Yes it appears they will cover all the sound/bay/lagoon side of all the National Seashore. NONE on the gulf side (too turbulent for sea grass production)

Yes, it will be bouyed off.

This is GOOD for the fishery in my opinion. You'll need a trolling motor, but it saves grass which is a VITAL eco-system in the estuary. Probably only those swamp areas are as important as turtle grass.

One of the best fishing areas for Reds is the Mosquito Lagoon near Cape Canaveral. It was made a No Motor Zone years ago and is probably the best habitat for Reds and Trout in the state.

"Management" can work. Protecting grass flats from being ripped up from props is a good thing.

Go to the flats at night. Shine a powerful flashlight into the grass. You'll be surprised at all the critters that stare back at you. If there is no grass, there will be no critters staring back.

This plan is GOOD for fishing!!!

Jim


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I wish Karon still contributed on this site...

She would back this plan in a heartbeat. As would our other biologists.

This is truly a no brainer. Fish normally do not breed or hang out in open waters. Fish and the rest of the food chain like to hide. That is what swamps and grass beds are for. It allows things to hide. Then it becomes a place for predation.

That's not to mention the filtration that takes place in the estuary from water that seeps in from rivers and streams.

Jim


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

If this plan is allowed to be implemented, you will not be able to land a boat on any US Government beach (on the north side of the island) from the AL state line to Navarra, with the exception of a small portion of FT Mcree which will require a permit ($). 
They tried this a few years ago with the jet ski panic, and it was to include boats then. Luckily it got shot down. 
All I hear on here is how there are more fish than ever……
No one has proven that any damage has or is being done; it’s just a land grab by the same people that tried it before.
I guess if you want to loose boat access to over 20 miles of OUR beach, well you should be all for this.
What local organizations are for this plan and which ones are against it? Time to draw some lines in the sand so to speak.
I imagine the Kayak lobby is in full swing, lol. I also can’t imagine the boat dealers would be for this, why have a boat if you cant go to the beach. Why have a boat repair business if there are no boats. That’s the real reason behind this portion, get rid of boats, one section of coast at a time.
The bouy system will end up being like Jim said in 5 feet of water, so you can carry grandma on your shoulders into the beach.
I’m all for the environment, but show me that the abundant amount of fish everyone keeps talking about, need 20 more miles of beach…..
I don’t belong to any organization (yet) but like I said before, as soon as the government starts drawing lines on a map you’re screwed.
We need to find out where Robert Turpin stands as well as Rep Miller.
Time to pony up folks before you lose your beach by boat. Everything not government is PRIVATE already. This plan sux and needs a lot more study.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

NOT TRUE!

You can land in ANY property except the areas on the map.

You can land and camp on Fred Levin's property as long as you stay below the Mean High Water Line.

You can camp on the National Seashore from any road.

You can raise your motor and tow grandma ashore too. (I'd take a picture to show the judge though).

YES, by boat it will be more limited.(Actually with a trolling motor, not so much)

But I think protection of turtle grass, so fish can breed, camp out, grow, and be fished is more important than camping.

There is room and ways to camp. This IMPROVES fisheries. YES it makes camping by boat harder. I'm not a camper just to add information. But I bet there are more fishermen than campers in this area. Campers can STILL camp though.

Jim


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

I dont camp either, I use the beach for day use, most of the time by boat. I'm sure you realize that all beach access not government (including NAS) is private property. I know about the hig tide rule (I live on the water), that's a weak argument!

BillD


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

dockmaster said:


> I dont camp either, I use the beach for day use, most of the time by boat. I'm sure you realize that all beach access not government (including NAS) is private property. I know about the hig tide rule (I live on the water), that's a weak argument!
> 
> BillD


Bill, 

Still there are places to spend your time. There's a lot of area east and west of Portofino for instance. 

Lot's of places around the Baghdad area.

YES, your favorite spot near pickens will be closed. 

But we need to protect grass beds. I bet you avoid grass beds on your way to the north beach. Many, many more do not. I fish those beds and can see damage and watch it happen. Heck, I did my fair share of damage till I figured out I was screwing it up. And it's not like a lawn, damage lasts YEARS, yep YEARS. A single swath of a prop can take 10 years to repair, IF it repairs.

Jim


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I will bet that if this happens, our bait shops and inshore guides will soon learn to be in favor of it, No Motor Zones are "destination" spots for inshore fishermen.

That leads to hotel rooms... etc.

Just like the Oriskiny has brought divers to P'cola.

"Unspoiled waters" and all.

By the way, I own a flats boat with a trolling motor, kept at Sherman Cove.

Jim


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Jim, look at the map again, all the beach to the west and east of Portifino is included, hence almost all the way to Navarra.

Yes I raise my prop as do most people. I'm not seeing the decline of the species due to prop damage. Its an easy excuse for the environmentalists to seize upon. There are already areas marked off. When is enough enough? Never to the evioremental crowd. How much land was taken on Perdido River? Miles of it.

Lets see the organizations that back the plan. Personally, it needs more time for public comment. Hopefully it will get fired up shortly.

The Oriskany was projected to bring 190million a year to Pensacola. I see the Wet Dream hasnt been replaced so I guess that figure isnt happening. Again, more government bs. The Snow Ball derby brings 10time more money to Pcola than the Oriskany and it didnt cost 28 million of tax payers money!!
I'm not willing to give up 20 miles of beach this year and Ft Mcree a few years later. Thats how it works.

Ive been on salt water everyday damn near since I was 18, so its not a new thing to me. I've watched these lines being draw by the feds, first hand, with out proper study, etc. Just look at the snapper, grouper, aj fiasco. Does that tell you anything?

I aint going away!!
BillD


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Bill,

The Gulf Shores National Seashore is a National Park. Like Yosemite, or Grand Canyon.

The size is limited. I showed a map. that map was, for instance from the tip of Ft Pickens to the west to the Ft Pickens entrance to the east. That is is no way near Portofino. It stops west of the first condo on P'cola Beach. From the entrance to Johnson's Beach on the west to Ft. McCrae on the east. Then a few more spots along the coast.

Look at the Live Oaks area.



It's about a mile on each side. It excludes most of Gulf Breeze, Take a look at Santa Rosa. After East of the park entrance, NOTHING is covered till a small spot in Ft Walton.

I suggest you look at the picture and compare it to Google Earth.

I don't know the camping rules along those areas, but they sure look desolate on Google Earth.

Heck, I WISH we could exclude ALL grass flats to motors. It would do a lot for our fishery in my opinion.

What would be better for Redfish and Trout? Allowing gas motors over their habitat that can destroy that habitat? Or not?

Sorry, I know a little about the science here. If you want to allow sites along the way that no longer have grass, I'll buy off on that. But I'd rather allow the grass to grow back, even if it takes 40 years.

There are places it'll never grow. I'd prefer that "campers" go there.

I think we can compromise. But I support the proposed rule.

Jim


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

WAIT!!! I am WRONG! There IS an area east of P'cola Beach to near the Navarre bridge that is also National Seashore.

http://www.nps.gov/guis/index.htm

But NO part of the beach that is populated is part of the National Seashore.

Click on view maps, then zoom in. That would also be restricted. My bad. 

Still in favor though.

Jim


----------



## chris592 (Jul 5, 2008)

Well I guess if this should take place it should shut down the Duck hunting to....Yea!!!


----------



## Dagwood (Oct 1, 2007)

I'm opposed to any more government regulation on our recreational areas unless there is firm scientific evidence that it is causing a problem. I don't think this evidence exists. I see tons of turtle grass now all along the shore on the bay side. I've almost given up fishing because you need to bring a lawyer with you now to be able to determine what can and cannot be done. Let's just not allow any boating or fishing or any kind of recreation and we PROBABLY would improve the fish population.


----------



## keperry1182 (Oct 6, 2010)

One more reason Kayak fishing is AWESOME!!!!!! But seriously, yeah if they close it you'll be restricted, yeah you'll buy a permit (maybe), but if you destroy the grassbeds then there will be no fish to go after anyway. I like the idea but I hate that people won't just stay off of them without being forced. I'm in the military and we call it the 10% ( i'm sure others do too but this is what we call it) 10% of people f*&k it up for the other 90% and that is what happened here, jackasses couldn't stay off the grassbeds without chunkin um up and now all the motorized boaters will have to pay. Sucks but it's a good result that could come, I do agree that if you give government an inch they'll take a mile as well just a lose-lose situation.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I suggest a google search using the term "turtle grass damage". You'll get plenty of science from scientists from NOAA, the "u", uva, etc.

Here's one:

http://www.seagrassgrow.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/3571

Heck, somebody is doing research just outside the "no motor zone" just across from Sherman Cove.

Jim

Jim


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

You know, whether you for or against the beach access by boat, part of this GINS Management Plan, I would suggest people review it and get up to speed. The sea grass section is a few little paragraphs in a 400 page document that pertains to Gulf Island National Seashore and how the Park Service plans to manage or in my opinion non managment of the 30 or so miles of park in our immediate area.
The thing that strike me the most is that the public will not have MORE access but Less, especially after a natural disaster, which in a nut shell they will not rebuild sections of the Seashore, there by greatly limiting your access.
The devil is really in the details.

BTW..anyone know of a good cut and paste program for Adobe Reader or Foxitt hats preferably free? Foxit version seems to be crippleware.

BillD


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

THIS GUIDE IS AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL!

as for grass needed to be able to fish...please go fish in escambia bay, black water bay and perdido bay. plenty of fish to be caught and NO TURTLE GRASS!

As for the grass in big lagoon. There is more there now than when I was a youngster. More boats today than in the past!

The grass on ft pickens just showed up a few years ago. why? because of the Ivan storm and the shift in the island.

JIMT...I am sorry but you are dead wrong on this proposal. If you support this and they get this implemented. It will just be the beginning!

all you flounder giggers be prepared to no longer gig fish on ft pickens.

You notice that the meeting has already taken place. if the boaters...ALL BOATERS new about this proposal they would have shut this down. Is there another meeting in pensacola to express your opionions?

AGAIN THIS GUIDE SAYS THIS IS A BAD PLAN! STOP IT NOW FELLOW BOATERS!


----------



## johnsonbeachbum (Oct 1, 2007)

jim t said:


> NOT TRUE!
> 
> You can land in ANY property except the areas on the map.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry Jim but you sound just like those advocates of Wilderness Areas as long as your activity is not impacted it is okay with you.


----------



## johnsonbeachbum (Oct 1, 2007)

jim t said:


> Bill,
> 
> Still there are places to spend your time. There's a lot of area east and west of Portofino for instance. *Not for camping of any sort.*
> 
> ...


Bouys around an area still won't fix stupid.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

johnsonbeachbum said:


> Sorry Jim but you sound just like those advocates of Wilderness Areas as long as your activity is not impacted it is okay with you.



Oops, I did not know about how restricted camping is. But then the no motor zone would have no effect on current camping. It will have an effect on day trips to the sound side though. 

As I said earlier I'd be happy if they are careful and draw the no motor zone lines so that the areas with no present sea grass are excluded. Plenty of spots on the east side of the pass, not many but a few in the Lagoon.

But yeah, I want to protect the sea grass from stupid. Posted no motor zones would be a big help.

These areas are essential to a healthy fish population. These areas and other wetlands, marshes and swamps are the nurseries for our marine inshore ecosystem.

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

Jeff Miller has been contacted as well as I have contacted the superintendent of the gulf national seashore.

if we get another public hearing in gulf breeze every boat owner must come out and express their feelings.

Until that time please flood the superintendent with as much email, mail and phone calls as you can!

ask yourself...when you take your boat out for a day on the water and fun on the beach where can you go? That is right the only place is the national seashore. All other beaches are privately owned.

THIS IS WAY BIGGER THAN JUST A RED SNAPPER THIS EFFECTS EVERY BOAT OWNER


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

captwesrozier said:


> Jeff Miller has been contacted as well as I have contacted the superintendent of the gulf national seashore.
> 
> if we get another public hearing in gulf breeze every boat owner must come out and express their feelings.
> 
> ...


A bit over the top... how many 40' ers do you see pull up across the grass flats. But I will contact them to only restrict travel over current grass flats.

Jim


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

This is just another power play by an already oppressive government. I can travel with my outboard trimmed up and out of the grass without damaging the grass. I'm very careful not to damage the grass. I don't need some ass with a badge screwing with me over something that's none of his business. If this plan is implemented, you'll see more government boats and badges to enforce the oppression. BTW, do you work for the government, Jim?


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Burnt Drag said:


> This is just another power play by an already oppressive government. I can travel with my outboard trimmed up and out of the grass without damaging the grass. I'm very careful not to damage the grass. I don't need some ass with a badge screwing with me over something that's none of his business. If this plan is implemented, you'll see more government boats and badges to enforce the oppression. BTW, do you work for the government, Jim?


Nope. But I've taken a few courses in wetlands science and management. Better wetlands and seagrasses = better fishing. Again they are the nurseries of our watershed. It's where the young critters hide and grow up. In recent research I read where every one square foot of missing grass from a prop scar can be measured to a specifically smaller number of shrimp on that grass bed.

Fewer motorized boats in the grass beds=better grass beds. Fewer anchors in the grass beds=better grass beds. Better grass beds=better fishing throughout the inshore and close off shore fisheries.

Jim


----------



## chris592 (Jul 5, 2008)

So are you saying the fishing is in trouble in this area around the park? If so you are doing something wrong..


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm saying it could be better, and the entire fishery would benefit. Arguably, the best inshore fishery in the state is in a no motor zone. The Mosquito Lagoon in Volusia County. Fishing is good just south on the flats in Brevard County too. But it's much better in the NMZ.

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

the flats in big lagoon and big sabine have been awesome all year long. so i guess we do not need a NO MOTOR ZONE!


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

ok folks, all the discussion on here is great, but PLEASE, forward your comments to: (email) [email protected]
(snail Mail) Superintendent, Gulf IslandsNationalSeashore 
Attn: GUIS GMP, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32563

by November 11, 2011. Faxed comments and telephone messages will not be accepted.

Also I contacted Congressman Jeff Millers office: 202 225 4136
The Pensacola Office was clueless and patched me to Wash DC. They are supposdly getting up to speed on this issue.

I'm still not sure where the local fishing associations stand. Mabey they could chime in. I'm sure Captain Wes has a few contacts.

Normally in these managment plans and other big legislation its not an all or nothing, meaning that changes within the original draft will come from Public comment and pressure.

This Management Plan will effect the largest piece of waterfront real estate in Escambia County and lets not forget Mississippi. Its alot more than seagrass.....

Rock on, or enjoy it while you can..

BillD


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Superintendent Brown: 

I was at Johnson's Beach today, and asked the 25 or so people I came in contact with, if they had and idea of the Management Plan for the GINS. One couple said yes. 
The others had heard nothing, and were local residents. 
I went to the bulletin boards at the main beach and there is absolutely no mention of the Management Plan. Nor is any literature being handed out to guests entering the Park. 
Would it be so hard to implement those suggestions? I'm sure the National Park Service could brainstorm even more ideas, with the goal of informing the public. 
I can safely assume your other Parks within GINS have the same issue, that being, the public is not being informed of the Plan. 
A few people have said they saw a quick story in the Pensacola New Journal, the day before the meeting in Gulf Breeze. Pretty poor planning for the area standing to have the largest change. 
The Next meeting is in Mississippi, so I wouldn't expect many FL residents to attend. 
As the head steward of the GINS, I would think you would want the public informed, so they may be able to comment on how they would like THEIR park managed. 
While the comment period looks noble and is required by law, I think a rather lackluster attempt to inform the public is being made on your organizations part. 
I would like to suggest that you extends the comment period for another month or more, and more importantly, put forth a genuine good faith effort to inform the public of the changes that may happen. 

Sincerely; 

William Driscoll 
Pensacola, FL 

cc: Congressman Jeffery Miller (via separate delivery)


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

i have contacted jeff millers office as well as placed a call back from Mr Brown. they say it will be friday afternoon.

My hope is to have Mr Brown have another public hearing in Gulf Breeze as well as Perdido Key.

Then i plan on making my way to our boat launches as boaters come in and inform them of what is going on with the GINS.

i have the book at my home of the plans. It seems there could be lots of compromises and everybody would be happy!


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Cards and letter work folks! Heres an email I just got from the supertendant of GINS. 
Thanks to anyone who had additional input.
bd

Mr. Driscoll, We have heard from a number of individuals who expressed similar concerns. We have scheduled additional meetings in Florida on Nov. 8, from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m., and in Mississippi on Nov. 10 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. The meeting in Florida will be held at the Naval Live Oaks Visitor Center at 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, and the Mississippi meeting at the Davis Bayou Visitor Center at 3500 Park Road, Ocean Springs, MS 39564. We have also extended the public comment period through December 9. I have asked that your name and email address be included on the GMP email distribution listing. We will also extend our postings to include park bulletin boards, park entrance stations, and local marinas. Thank you for your input, and I look forward to receiving your comments. Daniel R. Brown Superintendent Gulf Islands National Seashore 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway Gulf Breeze, FL 32563 __________________________ FL office (850) 934-2604 (M,T,F) MS office (228) 230-4102 (W,Th) fax (850) 916-3026 email: [email protected] __________________________


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

i heard from Marty White who talked to Jeff Miller. Jeff had Mr Brown put a 30 day extension so this could be looked at by his office. Also more public meetings on November 8th from 4 to 630 pm.

YOU MUST MAKE SURE YOU AND EVERY BOAT OWNER (THAT YOU KNOW) WHETHER THEY FISH OR NOT ATTEND THIS MEETING.
YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY EXCUSES FOR NOT ATTENDING!

THIS IS NOT ABOUT FISHING!

GET THE WORD OUT!

IF YOU FAIL HERE WHY HAVE A BOAT ANYMORE?


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm with Jim.


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

fishFEEDER9697

good! then be there and express your feelings! but be there! agreeing with jim here on this thread will not change anything what they do or not do. being at the GINS at 4pm on nov 8th can change what they do or do not do!

see you there.

also have them send you the book on the proposed changes. read up on what they are proposing. key words to look for are "depending on" and "might be". these words allow them once enacted to do what they REALLY want to do!

get the book and read it for yourself.

then research california's NO FISHING ZONES.

*California and Marine No-Fishing Zones*

California’s coastal waters are home to some of the best-managed and healthiest fisheries in the world. Despite the fact that current fisheries management is working, the state, backed by several well-funded environmental organizations, is attempting to take recreational anglers off the water through the implementation of the state’s 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which requires the formation of a network of marine protected areas in California’s coastal waters, including marine reserves which prohibit recreational fishing.


*California Closes South Coast Waters to Recreational Fishing* 
During its December 15, meeting, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) voted 3-2 to approve a wide-ranging array of marine protected areas (MPAs), essentially no-fishing zones, along the southern California coast. In its latest effort to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), the commission’s vote indefinitely closes approximately 12 percent of southern California’s ocean waters to recreational fishing – including many of the state’s best recreational fishing areas. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), of which the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is a member, has voiced its concerns regarding the numerous flaws and a lack of transparency in the process. One of the PSO’s members, United Anglers of Southern California (UASC), has retained legal representation to investigate the legality of the MLPA process. Representatives from ASA, the PSO and its legal team provided testimony during the December 15, commission meeting requesting suspension of the South Coast MLPA implementation.


*9/28/2011 -DFG plans to enforce No-Take zones starting Januar**y** 1st**
*REDDING -- At its Sept. 16 meeting, the California Fish and Game Commission agreed to push back the original Oct. 1 enforcement date to implement 49 new Marine Protected Areas -- no-take zones -- along Southern California’s coast to Jan. 1, 2012.


Congress Aims to Protect Anglers’ Freedom to Fish

Public access to the nation’s oceans and coastal resources is being seriously threatened 
by the increased use of marine protected areas. In response, the American Sportfishing 
Association (ASA) and the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) worked closely with 
congressional leaders on legislation to protect America’s 12 million saltwater anglers. Late 
last week, Senators John Breaux (LA) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) reintroduced this 
legislation as the Freedom To Fish Act (S.1314).
From California to Florida, no fishing zones are increasingly becoming the marine 
resource management tool of choice. While recreational anglers account for just two 
percent of all fish landed in U.S. ocean waters, some environmental groups are calling for 
sport fishing to be eliminated ion anywhere from five to twenty percent of U.S. coastal 
waters. These arbitrary figures have nothing to do with good science contend the 
proponents of the Freedom To Fish Act.
“The proponents are arbitrarily closing off these waters should be ashamed of 
themselves for short changing America’s conservation-minded anglers,” says Mike 
Nussman, ASA vice president. “Many no-fishing zones ban recreational fishing even when 
science clearly shows that anglers are not causing a problem to the resources. That’s just 
not smart management.”
Nussman goes on to point out that recreational anglers are already by a strict set of 
regulations ranging from closed seasons to catch limits to size limits and when enforced 
correctly, these regulations have proven to be effective at ensuring healthy fish stocks.
“Time and area closures can be effective management tools when based on good 
scientific data,” said David Cummings, President of CCA, but arbitrary restriction of 
recreational anglers merely displaces fishing effort, increases regulatory confusion, 
increases user group conflicts and cast doubt on the entire fishery management process. 
It is a disservice to all U.S. Citizens.
Blanket marine closures take away the single most important element to sport fishing – 
the public’s access to the water. The Freedom To Fish Act would establish common sense 
guidelines and safeguards to preserve the public’s freedom to use and enjoy these 
resources.
According to the legislation, only in those cases where recreational fishing has 
demonstrated adverse affects could be a specific, well-defined area be closed. Further, 
once established targets are achieved, that area would reopen immediately to recreational 
anglers. “Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of 
action, but rather our last,” concluded Senator Breaux.
In the eyes of this angler/guide, I feel a major relief over this subject. The banning of 
recreational fishing should be a last ditch effort to allow the stabilization of a resource. 
With the help of the CCA and the ASA we are seeing our voices herd in Washington 
through our elected officials. Lets keep the pressure on till the Freedom To Fish Act is 
passed. We as anglers can no longer just be fisherman; we are the watchdogs of our 
precious resource.
Capt. Dave Sutton


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*Pros and cons*

I agree with you too, captwes. I do not think that the government should deny the public access to public property. That being said, grassbeds are worth protecting. Some people can drive 100mph on the highway and decide when it is okay and not okay. Some people cannot. Some boaters can operate their vessels safely and responsibly, and some cannot. Recreational fisherman will benefit. If the Florida Keys were protected 30 or 40 years ago, then they would be in better shape today. Our barrier islands along the northern gulfcoast are unique as well. I am of the mind that our grandchildren deserve to experince our local outdoors at its best. I know change is difficult.


----------



## reelhappy (Oct 31, 2007)

i am sorry for being missing for so long from this forum . 
i plan to be a little more active now .
i don't know all of this matter , but i am looking in to this .
there is a lot of both sides to this subject . 
but i feel that any ground given to the goverment to take away any thing we have now is wrong. these parks and areas are for public use . 
and yes its a shame that 10% of the boaters spoil things for the other 90%. that is life ! (can't fix stupid ) . but the rest of us still want to be able to use these parks that where set aside for all to enjoy. punish the guilty not the innocent. ( catch and fine boaters for prop scares ). fishing in pensacola is getting better every year. as more reefing projects get done . structure is the key not just turtle grass . it is bridge rubble and reef balls . its cleaner water from oyster beds projects . ( which also helps the turtle grass ) all these things and more . being done by local groups and clubs . we all are working for a better tomorrow . i i don't want all that work to be taken away for no good reason . the answer is not closing off areas to the public . no its education , and training , working together for a better place for our childern to enjoy.
president 
pensacola recreational fisherman association
scot mason


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I'd say, we are not closing off areas to the public. We are closing off areas where irresponsible boating does harm to our valuable resources and allowing responsible boaters.

AGAIN, I'm all for a compromise where we allow free boating to areas that do not now have sea grasses. I'm only asking that we protect our wetlands as they are.

People may not like the science, but it's still "logical" that sea grass bed hold a lot of fish. Let's protect those beds.

The Mosquito Lagoon No Motor Zone (NMZ) is a fishing "destination" and rightly so.

We could have our own "Mosquito Lagoon".

And I won't accept that Pensacola is as much a inshore fishing "destination" for tourist fishermen as the "Mosquito Lagoon", or the Keys, or parts of the west coast or Louisiana.

A "Gulf Islands" NMZ can be a good thing for Pensacola.

That and it's a good idea for fishing in our area anywhere.

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

jimT

look forward to seeing you at the meeting nov 8th


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Not one item, in any of the proposals give the public MORE access to GINS. Not one. The public doesn't gain one INCH of anything. Its take, take, take. 

Also dont forget there are 14 miles of grass beds and semi grass beds that is closed to the public around the NAS. Hate to say it but sea grass is the new phrase for the Nature Conservatory and the Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations. Its the snail darter, Perdido Beach mouse and the spotted owl. No one has come up with a study to show that the grass beds of GINS are so screwed up, that the fisheries is in peril or is going to be in peril. GINS isnt the FL keys either.

I personally don't think they will close off all 20 or so miles, but there (NPS) plan or the plan suggested to them by outside sources is demand all and maybe settle. But its more than the water part. It about public access to the park, and how they manage that. Part of the plan is to use the part for education....Great!! but they don't need the whole damn thing.
Like I tell my kid....share! There are some items I like. They want to restore the old Lifesaving Station Station back to the original (1906). I've seen the NPS do that to other LLS on the west coast, and they did a fine job. To me that's management. They did a nice job on Ft Pickens, and maintained it over the years. 

Capt Wes is right about Calif. Go look at the rules for Marine Sanctuaries. 
What started out as a little box around the Farallone Islands, 20miles west of San Fran has now encompassed 100's of miles of the Calis coastline to 50 miles off shore. 

Save me a seat, see ya on Nov 8th

BillD


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Heaven forbid the Perdido kKey Beach Mouse stop development.

Probably without the mouse, Perdido Key would be all condos as Orange Beach has become. It is becoming OB slowly but surely as Escambia County changes zoning rules, slowly but surely.

The LAST defense is Johnson Beach, aka the Gulf Islands Nation Sea Shore.

Be careful what you ask for.

Without restrictions all heck breaks loose.

The EPA was started by a conservative, President Nixon, the last straw was when waterways were catching fire! YES, the top of the water was catching fire, acres at a time.

But I'm sure if we did away with the EPA, that would NEVER happen again! After all, today's corporations would NEVER leak chemicals on purpose!
(Sarcasm)

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

jimT

the beach mouse has nothing to do with the non development of johnson beach. we pensacolians owned johnson beach and through congressman bob sikes and richard nixon created the GINS.

Sikes wanted us northwest florida people to ALWAYS HAVE THAT ISLAND TO USE AS WE WANTED TO USE IT.

you are right closing all the grassbeds to NMZ would increase good fishing in those areas. why? because most fishermen would not be able to access it the area.

hell if we go with that reasoning lets just say NO FISHING at all along the GINS. Think about all the fish species that would survive making fishing good in other waters around the GINS.

Yep that is just how the tree huggers look at how to stop fishermen. Who do you think are pushing these buttons. Those who would take your fishing and boating rights away.

WE MUST DRAW A LINE. they will take everything they can get. we never get anything back. DRAW THE LINE PEOPLE and tell the government NO MORE! come back with scientific facts that say the sea turtle grass is dying away!


----------



## SHO-NUFF (May 30, 2011)

When my kids were younger, the highlight of an offshore fishing trip was stopping by the "cove" for some swimming and exploring after a day in the Gulf. 
I have been there hundreds of times, and don't recall seeing any grass beds where I beached the boat. Nor around sand island. 

When I lived in Santa Rosa Shores before Hurricane Ivan, we begged the DEP and ACOE to dredge and mark a Channel from the canal system into the Sound. Answer was NO, because of the sea grass. So boats just ran where ever they wanted and the grass beds were torn up by props and skegs. Why not sacrifice 20 foot of grass for a designated channel to protect the rest of it? 

Personally, I "trim up" when I approach any beach or shallow areas. Has nothing to do with grass beds. I don't want to ruin my prop or lower unit by hitting something on the bottom. Old motor and the skeg still has all the paint on it!


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*A professional opinion*

Our buddy Mr. Turpin thinks grass beds are worth protecting- http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...jxoujW&sig=AHIEtbRIWX70e7A7IoO8oziG68uNvtasBw


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

That Perdido Bay study is great, since there is NO boat traffic up there,pollution or something else would be the problem. The study is also interpolated, or estimated by a certain percentage, not actually looking...cause lord knows you cant see the bottom up there upper or lower.

BillD


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*Relevant info*

Dang. Some people have an answer for eveything. Perhaps they should consider running for office. :notworthy:Here's Escambia Bay- http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...mVz3kA&sig=AHIEtbSksODIt057LcKlbsH3sHcPejiQjg


----------



## SHO-NUFF (May 30, 2011)

How much effect does a Hurricane have on the sea grass? I can tell you, I had acres of it inside my house post Ivan! 

I don't think boats have a fraction of the impact that natural occurrences and runoff pollutants contribute. 
It's just an easy knee jerk reaction by the so called Biologist, so they can say they have implemented a fix, and not loose funding to pay their wages.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

fishFEEDER9697 said:


> Our buddy Mr. Turpin thinks grass beds are worth protecting- http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...jxoujW&sig=AHIEtbRIWX70e7A7IoO8oziG68uNvtasBw


And we all know if Robert Turpin say's it, its GOSPEL


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

captwesrozier said:


> jimT
> 
> the beach mouse has nothing to do with the non development of johnson beach. we pensacolians owned johnson beach and through congressman bob sikes and richard nixon created the GINS.
> 
> ...


:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*so what?*



Capt. Jon Pinney said:


> And we all know if Robert Turpin say's it, its GOSPEL


So what are you implying Capt super moderator rollie eyes? That you don't support Escambia County's artificial reef program? or you don't like Turpin? 
I'm just poking fun. I agree with all of you. I just want somebody to give me an argument that in not in the "slippery slope" form. If your kid smokes a cigarette, then he (or she) is doomed to be a heroin addict. It doesn't hold water. It is called a fallacy in logic. 
Your access concerns are valid, but if you can't come up with anything better than that, then they (gov't) is gonna go ahead anyway because I guarantee that they will be willing to grant access concessions to move forward.


----------



## SHO-NUFF (May 30, 2011)

Think back a few years when we could drive 4-wheel drives to the pass and fish, that went away.
My 82 year old Father voted back in the early 70's to protect our rights to the areas in question, via the Gulf Islands National Seashore, and was against it at first. He did not wan't the Government involved and now we have to do something for our own Children also. It was a good thing back then, he later realized, or it would all look like Perdido Key and Destin.

Give it time, and you will not be allowed to walk on the Island because a "2 peckered hermit crab that loves Rap music" was discovered and foot prints destroy the radio reception to their shell! 

All jokes aside, we need to make a good showing on the 8th and have some sort of facts to protest the proposed changes. Trust me, the "Men in Black" will have all sorts of printed Propaganda along with a fancy PowerPoint presentation to justify the proposed intentions. 

Come if you can, and bring all you can. I will get there early and have some of the generic blank name tags from Office Depot we can write our PFF screen names on. 
I know it sounds cheesy as Hell and agree. But when you have one person presenting a bunch of Bull to a crowd, all they see is the name tags of the audience, and it can be intimidating. It shows that the crowd of concerned people are somewhat organized. Unless someone can get a bunch of Tee Shirts printed fast, that is our only option. I have been on both ends of the Crap Factory during my stint in the corporate world,as well as many other members. 

Any ideas or help to make a good factual showing? Please PM me.

Lets get off the fence and make something happen, or say we tried!


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*Yeah*

Yeah! Someone should tell them bureaucrats that it's our constitutional right to drive over the sand dunes and them grassbeds if we want to. :thumbsup:


----------



## reelhappy (Oct 31, 2007)

hey how much turtle grass does one 1500lbs manatee eat in a year ?
got to be 30 tons or so you would think!~ i bet a small herd of them could wipe out a huge area in a week ! maybe its the manatees eatiing it all and not the boaters. anybody ever think of that ? just a thought !~ maybe we should tell the manatees that they can't eat it any more lmao! 

any ways the PRFA will be at the meeting putting in there input to leave things just as is ! 

parks are for everybody to use . this land is set aside for pulbic use. and i think that 90% of us take care when using it! 
and 30% or more of us clean up the other 10% trash . i see it , i do it been part of many a clean ups ! responsable boating teach your kids show them that you care and they will!


----------



## ghost95 (May 4, 2009)

Hi all, just heard about this. If this passes it won't just affect fishermen. It will affect anyone who wants to take their kids across the sound to have a picnic or to walk across to the gulf. Floundering along the south side of the sound will be out for the most part also. This is a three fold issue. First the NPS has always tried to limit access to "Their" park by upping fees or not providing facilities for use. Just look at Jhonsons Beach and the lack of parking. Look at all the no roadside parking signs between Navarre and pensacola beach. What are they protecting? Migrating asphalt from the old road? Second is an extremeist environmental agenda that says grass is being destroyed by boats and all the bad things that go with it. I've lived here long enough to see the grass die off without a the touch of a prop. Pollution is much worse than all the props in the sound but "they" cant seem to fix that so it becomes a go after the boats issue. Finally comes the issue of...yes money. And permits to camp at McCree? What for? To pay for what services? What facilities? Why should there be a fee there? It's just another revenue stream, just like the citations for being in the grass areas would be. 

Please all, get in on the links to the gov't officals here and make sure your friends and family do too. Get you relatives that visit here to contact our officals. Charter boat guys, call your clients and ask for their help. Everyone needs to pull all the strings and call in any favors they can. Let's keep the sound and the rest of the GINS public and open.


----------



## ghost95 (May 4, 2009)

Can this thread be flagged so it dosen't get pushed down? You know what they say out of sight out of mind.


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*You forced me to read it.*

This is the exact language cut and pasted from the dreaded "Alternative 3". 
Regarding grassbeds in the Perdido Key management zone- Access by water would continue to be
permitted by private boat, with unrestricted
landings along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline
(except in designated swim areas).
Depending on adaptive management
measures implemented by national seashore
staff to protect seagrass beds, landing
locations on the Big Lagoon side might be
restricted to designated areas. 
Ft Mcrae- 
The eastern side of Perdido Key would
continue to be a popular anchorage, with
heavy visitor use accessing the eastern tip. To
minimize impacts on the environment and to
provide for enhanced service for recreational
users, additional restroom facilities (vault or
composting toilets) would be provided within
the eastern tip area of the key.
Primitive camping would continue to be
allowed 0.5 mile beyond the end of the road,
although a permit system might be established
for all overnight camping (land based and
overnight mooring of boats). 
Looks to me like some people are working themselves up over nothing. They want to put a toilet down there for crap's sake (pun intended).


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

If the NPS services uses the public comment period to approve "might" they wont need a public comment period to implement "will".


----------



## Johnms (Nov 29, 2010)

*Public comment on their website*

*Here was my comment on the draft documentation:*
I have reviewed the documentation. My main concern is the limiting of access to the Fort McRee end of Perdido Key for boat visiting and camping and restrictive boating along the Big Lagoon area. I think someone has to look at the boating public as a resource instead of negative impact event. Sure every time a human touches to seashore there is an impact, but is the intent of your organization to preserve the current (not natural that is long ago gone) state of the seashore or is it to encourage use of the system? Boating, fishing, and camping along the seashores is one of the few activities that are "nature" opportunities unlike driving to a condo resort which offers these opportunities. By blocking, taxing (by permitting and ticketing/fining,) you will in effect keep future support for the park system from happening. People blocked from using the seashore will no longer support it's funding. Instead, encouraging people to visit and use our public owned resources will only help to encourage support of continued funding. 

I was linked to this site by my congressman who is monitoring this strange effort. I believe the future funding of the system is best found by increasing use, not restricting access. 

you can comment too! Click here


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

fishFEEDER9697

When you go to buy a vehicle and the salesman says it MIGHT start up every time you turn the key over...are you going to buy this vehicle?

May be if they said what would force them to create a restricted area may clear up the MIGHT BE question:thumbsup:


----------



## Nat-Light (Oct 9, 2007)

fishFEEDER9697 said:


> This is the exact language cut and pasted from the dreaded "Alternative 3".
> Regarding grassbeds in the Perdido Key management zone- Access by water would continue to be
> permitted by private boat, with unrestricted
> landings along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline
> ...


But this alternative essentially creates a sea grass bed protection zone for almost the entire coastline on the sound/bay even if there is no grass currently in those areas. (Look at the maps for Alternatives 2-4. ) They did a survey of the grass beds following the oil spill and have set the current condition of the grass beds as the benchmark for future actions. Which IMO translates into limiting access to boaters in the future. The other thing to consider is that the Plan mentions the possibility of Marine Protection Areas- that translates into the very real possibility of no fishing within 1 mile of GINS property. 

We now have unrestricted access by water to the GINS- If they implement 2-4 we will only be able to access certain areas by boat. It's all there in black and white. The appeal to me of GINS is being able to access spots where I don't have to deal with big crowds of folks. I think they've made their minds up already, and the public comment is a procedural matter. I hope I'm wrong. 

More government bullshit.


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*Seagrass Bed Protection Zone*
The seagrass bed protection zone includes
areas containing seagrass beds, submerged
aquatic vegetation, and/or habitat areas
suitable for seagrass establishment. These
areas are managed to prevent resource
damage to seagrass beds from vessel
groundings, anchoring, and propeller
scarring. Seagrass bed protection zones would
be established using bathymetry (the
measurement of the depths of oceans, seas, or
other large bodies of water), and may extend
out from the shoreline several hundred yards
in some locations depending on the extent of
the seagrass beds. Some of these areas may be
restricted to nonmotorized activities.​

*Desired Visitor Experience. *
​​Visitors have​
opportunities to traverse through these areas
and access shoreline features; however,
depending on the degree of impacts observed
and recorded through NPS monitoring
efforts, restrictions may be placed on visitor
use (e.g. shoreline landing restrictions) in
these areas as conditions change.​​*Desired Resource Condition. *​

​​Seagrass beds​
and associated submerged aquatic vegetation
are healthy and providing nursery habitat for
marine species. An ongoing monitoring
program, including mapping, would be
developed to detect changes in seagrass bed
health and extent. Adaptive management
options may be needed to respond to
changing conditions observed over time for
this dynamic resource.​​*Appropriate Facilities and Functions. *​

​​For​
most areas within this zone there would be
very minimal facilities provided, although the
placement of mooring buoys, navigational
aids, signs, or dock structures may be provided
depending on the degree of management
intervention required to protect the​​​
resource. ​ 
They don't want to keep people off of the beach. They are suggesting designated marked paths so that all people may access the shore with as little impact to the grass as possible. I get the anti-government idealogy. I agree with it to an extent. I still am open to other people's ideas and interpretation of facts (as skewed as they might be).​


----------



## reelhappy (Oct 31, 2007)

i still would like to know how much sea grass 1 manatee eats in a year ?
i am still agianst any thing that limits any use of the parks in any manor . you give a inch they will keep taking . as for our opinions i don't thing it has much weight they always do what they want not what the people want that is wrong .


----------



## ghost95 (May 4, 2009)

Bump.


----------



## SHO-NUFF (May 30, 2011)

fishFEEDER9697 said:


> *Seagrass Bed Protection Zone*
> The seagrass bed protection zone includes
> areas containing seagrass beds, submerged
> aquatic vegetation, and/or habitat areas
> ...


 The popular boating area at the old battery south of Robertson's Island[sand island] or known by most locals as 'the cove, or sailboat cove', has little if any turtle grass. 
I quizzed my kids tonight if during their countless hours of snorkeling and swimming if they have noticed any. The answer was No. 

I totally understand the importance of the turtle grass. It's a nursery for all kinds of sea-life, and needs to be protected. I can't reason with the prop scarring theory. Even the dumbest boaters, and plenty of them, are not 'prop draggers' for the most part, and this a wrong approach.

Its propaganda. 

The GINS has had severe budget cuts. They need money, and are looking for away to make Damn sure everyone that utilizes OUR seashore pays.
Land locked folks have to pay 8 bucks to use the areas, either Johnson's beach or Pickens. Facilities and creature comforts are provided that require upkeep and have a cost burden. Most of us boaters don't us them. I think the NPS is trying to profit off us responsible boaters, that ask for nothing, using the turtle grass argument. 

If the proposal goes through, it will become an "as needed" free ticket for the Government to restrict our "free' access to the island. Doing away with the NPS would be the best thing. The area was enjoyed for years before it was created.
Most of us do our own Police work anyway. I bring home more trash than I take every time I boat over to the cove.


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

SHO-NUFF said:


> I bring home more trash than I take every time I boat over to the cove.


Well you are a responsible boater and a patriot. But the fact still remains that I have stepped over piles of used t.p. and human excrament on more than one occasion while vistiting Ft. Mcrae and am certain that others have had the same experience. That is just sad. If anyone doesn't believe that prop-scarring is an issue, that is fine. They don't have to believe.


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

If you have floundered Johnson's beach, you have undoubtedly seen this, especially toward the Oyster Bar Marina. You can find this in Big Lagoon as well.


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

*Compromise*

I don't think that public access should be restricted. 
The argument that grassbeds are not adversely affected by boat traffic is either a misinformed argument or there is another agenda, i.e. hassling the powers that be. If you want to hassle "the man", do it. Don't use grassbeds as your scapegoat. Find a legitimate argument. 
I also don't think that people should take a dump in a historic fort on public property, but I would hope that we can find a compromise so that people can still enjoy the area as they see fit. The problem with the economy is not an overnight fix either, but polarity in congress prevents any compromise (and therefore progress) because it is more important for politicians to go back to their constituancies saying that they didn't give in to the other side. That is stubborn bs. Kind of like this whole thing. :blink:


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Dont forget the planning/Discussion meeting tomorrow afternoon!
11/08/2011 3:30 PM 6:30 PM  Naval Live Oaks Visitor Center
1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway
Gulf Breeze, Florida
  850-934-2600 
The NPS was has added this meeting and a few others. Now is the time to show support and find out the particulars and ask questions

CU there:thumbup:

BillD


----------



## SHO-NUFF (May 30, 2011)

fishFEEDER9697 said:


> Well you are a responsible boater and a patriot. But the fact still remains that I have stepped over piles of used t.p. and human excrament on more than one occasion while vistiting Ft. Mcrae and am certain that others have had the same experience. That is just sad. If anyone doesn't believe that prop-scarring is an issue, that is fine. They don't have to believe.


 You are off subject. 
Ft. McRee or Mcrae does not have any sea grass around any anchorage or beach area. Sorry, nothing but sand, unless you venture into the cove/lagoon due west of the common beach area that is buoyed off to motorized vessels.

The beach area over the past few years has become less than desired. 
Some boaters are bringing glass on the beach, and for some reason spray paint to deface the inside and outside of the battery. And yes, it's some of our fellow boaters, few will walk the 7 mile trek from the end of Johnson's beach to travel by land. 

I have camped there for several days with my kids, without a boat with a head aboard. I taught mine at a young age to do the "cat" method. Dig a hole, do you're business and cover it up. 

It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch after all. And being the closest Ranger is 45 minutes away via a 4-wheeler, we have to be our own Police of the area. 
If you see someone doing wrong that degrades our enjoyment of the area, call them out on it! I have and will continue to do so, in a diplomatic way. Of course, you get the few ass-holes that tell you to mind you're own business, and how you deal with them is up to you.


----------



## fishFEEDER9697 (Sep 30, 2007)

No sir. I never said that there was grass down there in your cove, nor am I off topic. I was addressing two seperate issues brought up by others previously in the thread. 

1. The gov't... Ft. Mcrae- title of the thread, right?

2. The 1000-some-odd years of combined experience on here that was incorrectly stating that outboard motors have not affected local grassbeds. 

Again, I do not think that public access should be restricted. Additionally, I do not intend for any of my posts, even direct retorts, to be taken personally. I believe that each is entitled to his opinion, but when one states his (or her) opinion as fact, then it is fair game to be scrutinized as a fact.


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

I attended the meeting at Naval Live Oaks tonight. The main complaints with "Alternative 3" seemed to be the limited access to inshore shorelines by motorized boats and the restrictions on fishing that it would create. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there will be no restrictions to fishing other than restricting to gasoline/diesel powered motorboats? Trolling motors are allow?


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

That depends. Some areas that are no motor zones allow trolling motors. Other areas would be strictly polling and kayaking allowed. I did not attend the meeting today so I do not have a answer for you.


----------



## 60hertz (Oct 1, 2007)

I went to the meeting. I was there from 3:15 until about 4:45.

So. A few things that I took away:

1) THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW!!!
2) They need a long term plan to manage things - IF the park goes from having a couple of campers to having 100's then they MIGHT make you get permits, IF there is damage to the sea grass THEN they COULD close areas, IF this THEN This.

NOW - THEIR PLAN IS NOT ALL OK EITHER. THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF STRONG WORDS. A lot of the wording is VERY VAGUE, is very "high-level" and has a LOT of areas that are way to open for interpretation.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

So it sounds like information gathering and not policy making.

It sure looked otherwise on these boards

Not "Much Ado about Nothing" to be sure, certainly worth watching.

Jim


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

The point to this public meeting was to hear ideas to make specific changes in wording that would allow the plan to better fall in line with the preferences of the local public, among other things. I think this concept was lost from the beginning with everyone trying to talk over one another and I hope that everyone who attended submit any coherent views and ideas on the comment form that may have been lost due to the atmosphere.


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

That's exactly what it was, Jim. Sadly, I'd say we (the public), did a terrible job of providing specific helpful information.


----------



## FLbeachbum (Jul 17, 2008)

I was also at the meeting today. What i took away from it was that they are setting guidelines for what may be needed in the future. They were very careful to make sure that we all understood that they want to take a very limited approach for now and increase the restrictions as needed. They were very careful to talk about education and awareness of the concerns for now. Then if "conditions" exist to increase their "concerns" they may post some signs to explain the grass concerns of a particular area. Then if the "Conditions are such to increase the concern even further" then they may possibly rope off an area to restrict access. All this sounds OK but what I left concerned about is how far can their "Concerns" end up limiting our access to the Seashore. Yes I got it, that for now they want education and to not limit our access. But it seemed to me that the current program will allow them to totally limit our boat access to the Seashore, in the future, if and when they decide it may be necessary without further public input. Not sure if I should be concerned or not. After all it is our government and of course they have our best interests at heart. hmmmmmm


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

FLbeachbum said:


> I was also at the meeting today. What i took away from it was that they are setting guidelines for what may be needed in the future. They were very careful to make sure that we all understood that they want to take a very limited approach for now and increase the restrictions as needed. They were very careful to talk about education and awareness of the concerns for now. Then if "conditions" exist to increase their "concerns" they may post some signs to explain the grass concerns of a particular area. Then if the "Conditions are such to increase the concern even further" then they may possibly rope off an area to restrict access. All this sounds OK but what I left concerned about is how far can their "Concerns" end up limiting our access to the Seashore. Yes I got it, that for now they want education and to not limit our access. But it seemed to me that the current program will allow them to totally limit our boat access to the Seashore, in the future, if and when they decide it may be necessary without further public input. Not sure if I should be concerned or not. After all it is our government and of course they have our best interests at heart. hmmmmmm


No, in some cases they have Natures best interests at heart. I'm okay with restricting use of public lands to preserve the Timber Wolf, the Spoonbill, and the Manatee.

Come to find out we all win when habitat is protected.

Is it overdone sometimes? Sure. But I'd rather restrict hunting and fishing in favor of a stronger population anyday.

I don't think they are always right. But I think the science is sound most of the time.

Jim


----------



## jjam (Dec 9, 2007)

PBTH said:


> That's exactly what it was, Jim. Sadly, I'd say we (the public), did a terrible job of providing specific helpful information.


Not at all : 

1) Meeting was definitely an information gathering mainly by us (the public) and now is the time to provide specific helpful information. 

2) The speakers made it quite clear from the beginning that our discussions today were to educate the public their intent. Not us (the public) to offer any helpful information via discussions. 

Were opposing views expressed by some who actually researched the 450 pages of proposals? Absolutely, I expected nonetheless but I was able to gather a huge sum of information and will submit my ideas and so should all that has something to contribute, if not, you can just sit back and watch.

3) Now is time to provide specific helpful information via http://parkplanning.nps.gov/guis or the pre-address, free postage comment forms provided at the meeting.


Jimmy


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

I was there.

Mr. Brown made it very clear that "HE" can do what ever "HE" feels is necessary on or in the GINS.

Mr. Brown can make "NO FISHING ZONES" where and when he choices.

Mr. Brown can close down the pass.

Did you know that you cannot flounder gig on Ft Pickens? Did you know they started enforcing this regulation this past weekend?

Did you know that you cannot remove any natural resource (fish) from the national seashore?

I understand that he is looking into the future and that is great. I also hear him say he has no plans to enact these regulations. I also know he may not be here tomorrow. If he is no longer here who takes his place and will they honor what he says he will do?

No I will not trust Mr Brown or the federal government. I will work with Mr. Brown if they use sound scientific facts and approach each issue in a practical way to assure that the people will continue to use our island the way we want to use it.

They are also concern with the population of people to use this beach in the future...why...lots of island to be used. They do not want you to use the entire beach...why? Mice, sea oats, turtles and birds now have the largest area of the beach.

Yes I was there and so was about 150 other people which I would have to say did not like the plan as is.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Capt Wes,

I was NOT there. But I'd bet Mr. Brown stated his agency held control over the GINS, including by currently drawn lines the entire pass.

I'd bet he indicated his agency could, with approval, shut down fishing along the entire GINS. But I don't think he presently has that authority.

That will take government approval. These meetings are fact finding and not rule making.

Mr. Brown would need the authorization from his government agency to suspend fishing in the GINS. But Mr. Brown alone cannot do that just because he represents that agency.

Let's separate fact from fiction. They are seeking information here. They are suggesting policy and asking for feedback. 

Mr Brown cannot stop you or I from fishing tomorrow, or in 6 months, probably a couple years or more.

I think you are using scare tactics here. 

Jim

(Rush and the boys would be proud though)


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

JimT

you are correct you where not there.

I asked him and he said he has full authority. He and only he in the GINS. Mr Brown said and so did his chief DeeDee that Mr Brown can make NO fishing zones.

Mr Browns boss is the National Park Service.

The national park service's boss is the Secretary of the Interior. Congress cannot fire the Secretary of the Interior!

The next time do not post a statement in which YOU have no facts but only what YOU bet may have happened. Please follow your own preaching. YOU should have been there. I also do not give false or fictional information.

You can put your trust in Mr Brown and the government...I will not and I will make it my mission to make sure everybody else does not.

Now what else do you want to loose your money over?


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

By the way, was there any data presented that suggested the grass bed were being reduced? Was it suggested that it was prop and anchor damage? 

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

actually no other than some people have contacted Mr Brown about prop scaring!

They have no scientific data that says there is a problem.


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

now that there is no chlorine being dumped into pensacola bay from the sewage treatment plant...which is now gone...the grass is starting to recover on ft pickens!!!!!


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

captwesrozier said:


> now that there is no chlorine being dumped into pensacola bay from the sewage treatment plant...which is now gone...the grass is starting to recover on ft pickens!!!!!


Is that supported by science, or is it opinion?

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

that is a correlation:thumbsup:


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Or merely corrorborative...:whistling::whistling:

Jim


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

JIMT sent you a message

good night


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

I attended the meeting. Pretty good turn out by the boating/fishing public.

No evidence was presented on the grass beds, in fact Superintendent Brown stated the grass beds didn't require protection at this time, since there doing fine. It was brought to his attention that the quantified method they want to use is mathematically flawed for which he didn't have an answer. Possibly someday the beds may need protection, which he has the authority to protect. The plan will be serving as the public notice for him to do that in the future. Wes is right. What if he drops dead tomorrow and the next guy/gal sees it different? Trust them..probably not. Trusting there data is probably more of an issue, since they all went to the same govt school with the guys that count snapper/grouper/aj's etc, and we know how that turned out. 
The same thing was said about Ft Mcree, that currently, there is no problem. I was surprised that he didnt really know the amount of boats and people that use the cove....rather funny or sad...

I asked one of the rangers, how many people were at the first meeting. He said about 15-20. My guess is most of them were on the environmental side of the house. I would have liked to see the questions and answers from that meeting. Some how I don't think the concerns were the same, nor the answers. 

Anyway, the public (us) has our chance for input. It all becomes public record at that point. It needs to be in writing/email etc. All the concerns from tonights meeting dont mean shit unless there sent into the NPS, to become part of that public record. 

On a side note, it was nice to see the younger folks there. Mabey all is not lost!!

BillD


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

jjam said:


> Not at all :
> 
> 1) Meeting was definitely an information gathering mainly by us (the public) and now is the time to provide specific helpful information.
> 
> ...


Jimmy,

You are correct that it the meeting was also to provide information to us (the public). I thought much of the valuable discussion time was wasted with irrelevant accusations, though. Everyone should fill out the comment forms though! I'm sure Naval Live Oaks has extras if people want that option instead of online.


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

An idea I just came up with:

It does seem that the majority of people are out raged the most at the possible grass flats closures to motor vessels and consequently, access to shore.

What if these potential no motor zones were changed to be Idle Speed Zones? Could this be a possible acceptable compromise? By forcing boaters to go slow they would be more aware of their depth and possibly less likely to run aground or at least minimize damage if they do. Idle Speed Zones wouldn't limit access, but could provide a measure of protection to sea grass beds. A potential benefit to fishermen is such a zone would inhibit less considerate boaters from speeding past other boaters who are actively fishing the grass beds.

Thoughts?


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

It's the root structure and that area just above the sand that matters most. Yeah , an idle zone is better, but a NMZ is best.

But as a compromise, it is a good idea!

Jim


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

Jim, I'm on board with you. Just trying to look for beneficial compromises to please others.


----------



## LITECATCH (Oct 2, 2007)

It looked like they were shocked at how many fisher people showed up. Good turn out.


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Theres no problem with the grass flats now, the park service own statement. We dont need idle speed zones. Let us police our self. What do you want, 20-30 miles of idle speed zones.
You should go work on storm water run off, thats the main threat to sea grass, from every study that has been posted on here. 

Anyone operating a boat within less than 3feet of water is probably ideling now anyway.

It sounds like theres a different motive other than the grass flats.......
just say it!!

BillD


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

jim t said:


> No, in some cases they have Natures best interests at heart. I'm okay with restricting use of public lands to preserve the Timber Wolf, the Spoonbill, and the Manatee.
> 
> Come to find out we all win when habitat is protected.
> 
> ...


Jimt, I'd like to start by saying that you have been a long time, respected member of the forum and have always treated people with respect.

Now......WOW!!!!! That could be the single most foolish statement I have EVER seen on this or any other forum in my life!!!!

We had a 45 day snapper season this year. It will be SHORTER next year!!! 
Is this the same government science you trust so easily???

I was also at the meeting yesterday. 

This management plan gives the NPS ABSOLUTE POWER to do ANYTHING they want. But they say "don't worry, though this will give us the authority to do anything, you can trust us to make the right decision". 

Not right!


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

Very true Matt. A fundamental flaw to the plan is no future public input would be required to make large changes. Although, from what I understand, Mr. Brown already has the power to designate closure zones. If that true, even if public input was required with all the alternatives, how would that change anything in regards to closures? It seems that if absolute authority is what's feared by the public, then national policy is what should specifically be targeted, not these alternatives. Have we been living with absolute authority since the creation of National Seashore?

Thoughts?


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

Dockmaster, you're making it sound like large stretches of very narrow idle speed zones would inhibit traffic somehow. I don't see that issue existing. Like I said, I'm looking for possible productive compromises, not stating how things should be.

You also hit the nail on the head. "There is no problem with the grass flats now." Planning for the future is a good thing. Would you disagree with the Boy Scout motto? Be prepared...

Yes, the alternatives on the table now still need adjustments, but as long as public input is considered into future planning for the park I am in favor of planning. And that's all this is at the moment. Planning.


----------



## LITECATCH (Oct 2, 2007)

If the day comes that we can't flounder all these areas that where highlighted i guess we can go have a party in Mr Browns front yard.


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

@PBTH, here's my take on the present situation regarding the grass beds.. This is not a new assault on the no wake, idle speed or grass flats. It started before Ivan when certain green groups wanted to ban jet skis in in GINS and National Parks in general.. The ""Zone" at that time was from the ICW south to the beach. It didnt work out and that one was lost, though othe National Parks did enact very strict restrictions on jet skis in other parks. GINS was taken out of that plan due to public outcry. The seagrass beds at that time were also used as a reason though data was flawed.
Now fast forward again....the same special intrest groups are trying it again, using sea grass again as the reason we need "no wake zones, idle only zones, seagrass protection areas" etc. The main objective is to stop boating. Mabey not from you, though I'm sure if power boating was stopped tomorrow, you would be all smiles in your kayak!! There are organizations that have that plan in there target sights.
The Park service said there is no damage to the seagrass beds, so I dont need to compromise with anyone. Yes the Park Service has the authority to close off areas now and in the future. That is planning. All I can do is trust them (cough). If the seagrass get screwed by boating in the future or after the plan is enacted, I guess we deal with it then. I am 100 percent against anymore "zones" unless there are some damn good scientific reasons. Sea grass is a renewable resource. Think of it as your front lawn. If by accident I drive my truck over it, it may be scared for a week or too, but it grows back. Sea grass is the same, and you know it. There are sensitive areas already set aside and buoyed off I have no issue with those. Enough is never enough.
BTW, I am looking to purchase a kayak...and a jet ski to go along with the two boats I have sitting at my dock!! I just love the water I guess.

PBTH, No disrespect intended, I'm just tired of being a target by the we know better than you crowd.

BillD


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

The stated goal of these "alternatives" is to manage National Seashore for the next 20 years. It was stated over and over again by the Park Staff that parts of these alternatives will only be implemented if needed. Can you trust them to do that? I don't know, but I already stated that future large scale changes shouldn't be made without being accompanied by future public input.

Once again, I'm not advocating idle speed zones, just keeping an open mind and attempting to help forge beneficial ideas.

My enjoyment of Florida waters is by no means limited to kayaking. I make my living taking paying people on motorized boats fishing on our state's beautiful waters. Restricting public waters for no reason is something I'm against. Restricting floundering in these areas due to "potential public endangerment" is wrong and based on an ignorance of the activity.

"If the seagrass get screwed by boating in the future or after the plan is enacted, I guess we deal with it then."

I'd prefer to plan ahead for such potential circumstances if possible, not wait to fix something that breaks, if it could have been prevented.

You are very wrong to "think of sea grass as your front yard." Such a comparison cannot be made. Damage to sea grass beds can take a decade to heal. I have yet to see a prop scar heal 100% in a week.

I agree that all of the "alternatives" still need lots of work to sound reasonable and at their present format I wouldn't be happy with them. However, I am happy that plans for future and increased use of this incredible area are being addressed, rather than accepting a "do nothing until somethings wrong" philosophy.

Also, I took no disrespect from your post and do not intend any with mine, Dockmaster.


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

As we've already agreed upon, the Supertendant ALREADY has the authority to deal with the seagrass issue, where ever and whenever, should it need be addressed. Nothing that I've read in this Management Plan takes that away from him/her. Have you found a section I missed?

For instance, say a hundred foot section of beach gets destroyed because a barge grounds on it. He already has the authority to block that off and replant, and proceed against the tug company for damages. He should exercise this right, in fact he probably required by law to do this. BTW there already is a Superintendents Compendium against commercial vessel groundings. A public notice (education) that the damaged area is restricted for re-nourishment for a period of time would be sufficient, and when back to normal, the restriction would be lifted and the area opened back up. Thats the way it should work. The least restrictive amount of government.
Those of the opposing view would just want to keep the area it closed permanently, once closed always closed.
Why do you need a "plan" for something that is already basically law or legal authority? 
What if the Supertendant came out tomorrow and wanted the public comment, to lift the bouy system, in say, Spanish Cove, because that area and the rest of the seagrass beds are doing so well that the public once again derserves access.....He has that authority to do that, do you disagree?. Will it happen, no, but the legal authority is already there with out this plan. 
I'm for parts of this plan, as long as it addresses public access. Case in point. Rebuild the road system if needed. By being included in the plan, it can be included in future budgets, because it a big ticket item. 
A few buoys/signs to repair some damaged sea grass can be absorbed in current year funding if needed.
Personally, the whole sea grass thing, since its already covered by law and regulation is a red herring for other motives.

rock on

BillD


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

Yes. The ability to create exclusions zones exist already. I do agree that if it exists already, why must it be restated? 

What is there to be gained or lost by this restatement of what already exists? Since this power is already in place and has been, why is a restatement so outraging?

If the amount of power regarding creation of exclusion zones is not going to change with any of these alternatives, what is to be gained or lost by restatement? How would this limit the public any more than it already potentially can and how could special interest groups take advantage of something that isn't changing?

I ask these questions sincerely looking for answers.


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Wow...you answer your own question. But if you had to write something...Mabey including something to the effect of " Within Gulf Islands National Sea Shore, numerous seagrass beds exist and shall be maintained and administered by the Supertendant on an as needed basis or occurrence. While protection of the seagrass is very important, public access to the beach, is to be deemed, just as important, as long as the seagrass remains vibrant and healthy"

I get chills using the word "exclusion" when talking about access.............

BillD


----------



## PBTH (Oct 1, 2007)

"If the amount of power regarding creation of exclusion zones is not going to change with any of these alternatives, what is to be gained or lost by restatement? How would this limit the public any more than it already potentially can and how could special interest groups take advantage of something that isn't changing?"

These are the unanswered questions. Still asking for answers from anyone. If special interest groups can benefit from proposed alternatives as they are worded now more so than the regulations already in place, that's something I'm concerned with and am asking how.

The paragraph you wrote, dockmaster, is perfect and I agree. It balances legitimate needs quite well. Would you mind if I submit it on my comments form to GINS?


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

@PBTH Thanks, Your more than welcome to use it. 
Guess they will get two of the same paragraphs.:thumbup:

BillD


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

Matt Mcleod said:


> Jimt, I'd like to start by saying that you have been a long time, respected member of the forum and have always treated people with respect.
> 
> Now......WOW!!!!! That could be the single most foolish statement I have EVER seen on this or any other forum in my life!!!!
> 
> ...


Matt,

Thanks. It sounds to me that Mr. Brown is a good guy. By perusing (not reading every page) it seems that he is required by law to come up with a 20 year plan. From those that were at the meeting, I take it he has the authority to close both coast lines whenever he wishes.

It sounds like he is pragmatic and hasn't done so yet.

It sounds like our sea grasses are healthy and don't need saving yet. (Save education that motors can create harm)... I would support immediate signage all along our seagrass areas that say (Our seagrasses are VERY important, pleas raise your motors {and add a quick website on the bottom to describe their worth}) every 100 yards or so along the GINS. Signs are cheap and I'd bet do a lot to help "scarring".

This whole thing is educational for everybody.

By the way, I don't support not repaving roads that currently exist when the next storm comes through. I like the current access. I will only support limiting access when there is scientific evidence that current access has moderate to major damage to current environment conditions.

From what I read and hear that is not happening. Neither in dunes from current roads (though with out roads the dunes probably would get a little better), or in Sea Grasses, (though again they could get better).

I can support Option 1 which is pretty much the status quo.

But I can support things like signage in the grass beds to limit damage and create and sustain more grass.

Somebody said it's like our front lawn. Yes and no, the difference is, it can take 10 years to regrow that "scalped" portion of a sea grass bed. That's 10 years from a simple mistake.

But, I am learning. 

Yet it'd be nice to sell P'cola as a NMZ haven on our grass flats. Imagine the Inshore marketing, imagine the fishing.

Jim


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)

Just a reminder. All comments on the Gulf Islands General Management Plan need to be in by Dec 9th. You can comment online at this link. You also don't neede to write a hundred page book. Put down which option your for and mabey a brief explanation. In the past, I've seen the comments become basically a vote tally. Hopefully all comments will be available online to the public as they should be. If you value YOUR seashore, please comment. Believe me, the lawyers and lobbying groups in Washington DC that wrote this plan will have alot of input, that's why they have been silent.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=384&projectID=11318&documentID=43031

Rock on

Billd


----------



## dockmaster (Sep 27, 2007)




----------



## caddysdad (Nov 8, 2010)

*I work for the Corps of Engineers and here is the bottom line*

on "provisions for the future if needed".

1) If the government gives itself the right to do something, it will do so and generally in the NEAR future whether needed or not.

2) Might be means will be.

3) Just who decides it need be and why is never legislated and is always subject to the opinion of the government which means by whim and without further consideration.

I tried to buy a lot in Freeport, FL about a decade ago. I was told that I couldn't put a dock on that lot because of turtle grass and the permit was refused. I passed. Three years later the person in that position had rotated out and rotated out and the permit application of the buyer was approved without hesitation.

What else you want to know about this proposal?


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I owned a lot here in P'cola before Ivan. I got a dock approved by extending it out past the grass flats. They actually waived fees involved with it's length since I was willing to protect the grass.

It would have cost more for the dock, but it got it approved. I never built the dock because of Ivan, but the next owner did, past the grass flats.

Jim


----------



## caddysdad (Nov 8, 2010)

*In retrospect, I should have bought it and sat on it until*

I got a friendly inspector. Mine would not even consider letting me put poles in the sand for a boardwalk to get to a deep dock.

Friend of mine went through the same thing I did and when they turned him down he pursued a seawall. They came out and he drove the boat up onto the sand in front of the lot while they were standing there. 

They went nuts over the prop damage in the sea grass at which point he said "Well, you should have let me build a dock because this is where I intend to keep my boat."

They invited him to re-apply and he got his dock permit. Same inspector.


----------

