Public Meeting to Discuss Proposed Marine Sanctuary in Riviera Beach(BHB)

[danvolker]

I've used the area as a source for recreational activity for years. My recreation includes taking and collect tropical marine organisms. However, if this area is such a pristine and unique habitat that has unmatched diversity, then I am willing to sacrifice my chosen recreational activity. I hope other divers are willing to as well.

This clearly being the real issue for you....because you are a tropical fish collector, the entire sanctary idea is obnoxious to you. This is sad, because you should understand the idea of a marine estuary and juvenile nursery grounds....and also be aware that most of the fisheries in the world are depleted......as there is certainly significant "pressure" in "take" volumes of fish along the east coast, it is not a smart idea to allow significant "takes" to occur in juvenile nursery grounds, such as the BHB area.

Rather than seeing this sanctuary concept as a big threat to your own way of life, you could easily adopt the stance many island nations have---that locals can have permits for "take", but tourists can NOT. The area of BHB has supported collectors for many generations. Now however, it is becoming famous worldwide. If the number of visitors becomes multiplied several times, and the collector numbers rise exponentially with the heightened awareness ---the ability of the nursery ground to sustain its role in replenishing species would be dangerously compromised.
I doubt most of the people interested in the sancuary concept would have a big problem with a small number of collector permist being issued, with strict limits imposed to prevent unethical collectors from damaging the system

If you would like to push for this limited and controlled form of collection, we can talk about this on this forum, and probably many would help you.

I think there are some very serious issues with taking a navigable channel and turning it into a "dive park", or some other type of preserve. I had no idea sailboats need to drive right through that area, thank goodness it is a rare occurance, I have never seen it.

Dan V's idea of an underwater horn that sailboats would need to carry and deploy in only one place in the world: (the BHB) is utterly ridiculous. What authority would the local government call upon to make this new law?

This sounds like you have your nose out of joint because you are afraid of the sanctuary idea hurting your future collecting. It is laughable to imagine you a "champion" for the rights of sailboaters or for "navigation law".
What is utterly ridiculous, is your attacking anything that scares you about the future of collecting. Again, why not see if local collectors can have special permits, and tourists can not...and that each collector has to follow "take guidelines" as with lobster.

Logic would dictate that if this is a designated, navigable channel, then there is no way that they can put dive bouys up in this area. Designating this specific area as a santuary, is serving to promote diving within the navigable waterway. As a county tax payer, I am very concerned about the potential for an increase in the County's liability for accidents that might occur in this specific area. What next, a county play ground in the median of I-95? The boundary area obviously needs to be adjusted to accomodate the need to maintance navigable waterways.

There is no need for dive bouys in the channel. There is no need to effect the navigation of boats passing under the bridge. There is a need to prevent selfish collectors from depopulating rare speices, and feeling it is their God given right to do so....
In the entire time I have been diving at the bridge, I have NEVER seen or heard of this passage issue in the channel east of the main channel.
We do not have problems with boats going past the sailboat anchoring area, and the proposed zone should have zero effect on boaters navigation--it should only have effects on collectors....and maybe just of the number of collectors and the amount of their take in a specific area.

The boundary of the dive area really needs to be reduced in order to avoid putting unsuspecting divers into harms way with a large, deep draft sailboat plowing right through the designated "dive area". If they are going to eliminate MY recreational activity of (collecting recreational quantities of marine life), then I see no problem with taking away other divers ability to dive in the area. Clearly, an ordinance should be passed that precludes diving in this alternate channel.

Shockingly childish and petty comment... I hope you were not really serious when you wrote that---from the large number of posts of yours I have read through the years, while I did not always agree with you, I would have never imagined you such a small person that you would really think or act this way...even if you were not serious, I think you should apologize to the forum on this issue...wow.

I see other issues with the proximity to the designated fishing pier. The dive area should be further reduced to preclude divers from coming within 25 or 50 feet of the designated fishing pier. To make a designated diving santuary in the same footprint as a designated hook and line fishing pier is silly. I think it will make a personal injury attorney very happy when a diver is hooked badly by a fisherman (especially when both individuals are engaging in perfectly lawful (and County-approved activities in "the park"). I would definitely support a no-dive zone, a safety buffer around the fishing pier in order to formally recognize that intense utilization of the same area by incompatible user groups is the only way to protect the novice divers and our county from excessive liability. We don't have a County-sponsored easter egg hunt in the same area where hunting of small game is promoted, do we? Clearly, intense, high density recreational diving and hook and line fishing is not compatible at the exact same time and place. Drawing the designated santuary and dive zone under a fishing pier makes no sense at all.

More childish rantings. I have an image of you writing this with tears in your eyes, and constant pummeling of your desk
Try to remember you are a diver.
The county is supposed to allow multiple user groups to enjoy county resources.
The county needs to support the divers as much as it needs to support the fisherman. If we ever had problems because there were too many immature divers and fisherman to co-exist ( divers paying no attention to fishing lines and sometimes getting hooked... fisherman throwing their lines where they think they might be able to hook a diver), then the sensible solution would be divers get the 2 hours previous to high tide, the high tide, and the hour after slack high tide, and the fisherman get the other 20 hours per day for their exclusive use.
But this would be required only if huge numbers at the park decided to act like morons...and honestly, most of the interactions I have seen have been far more mature and "nice".

I strongly suspect that this plan of action will further legitamize this dive site, drawing many more divers to the park and thus increase impact to the very special, unique eco-system that exists ONLY under the BHB. I think that if "the santuary" is established, the County should spend some money to do some studies to document what kind of effects all the many new, inexperinced divers will be having on the benthos.....{snip the remaining drivel and slobering }

DD, you need to "man up" with your attitude. Get over this.
Sit down with me at the park and discuss solutions to the issue, rather than making posts like this to incite the entire forum. Like it or not, there are a bunch of us who will be trying to make things better for the future. I believe your collecting can still be possible, and in all liklihood, any imposed limits would probably be for a much larger take volume than you would ever want.
Instead of all this drama, work with us on a solution the locals here can all agree to.
How about sending me an email and planning this ... dan@sfdj.com

 

[djtimmy77]

DD, why don't you be up front....Are you mad about losing profit from selling your catch or do you need to replace animals that don't stay alive for very long in captivity?

 

[dumpsterDiver]

DD, why don't you be up front....Are you mad about losing profit from selling your catch or do you need to replace animals that don't stay alive for very long in captivity?

I said that I engage in recreational activity not commercial. As for commercial use of the facility, do you have a problem with people making money from use of the site?

If so, we need to do something about the dive instructors and dive shops that bring inexperienced divers to kick up silt and impact the nursery grounds, simply for profit and to save the costs of a boat charter.

 

[Scott L]

DD, I am not in favor of collecting at BHB, but you interjected a very good point above...

 

[dumpsterDiver]

This clearly being the real issue for you....because you are a tropical fish collector, the entire sanctary idea is obnoxious to you. This is sad, because you should understand the idea of a marine estuary and juvenile nursery grounds....and also be aware that most of the fisheries in the world are depleted......as there is certainly significant "pressure" in "take" volumes of fish along the east coast, it is not a smart idea to allow significant "takes" to occur in juvenile nursery grounds, such as the BHB area.

Rather than seeing this sanctuary concept as a big threat to your own way of life, you could easily adopt the stance many island nations have---that locals can have permits for "take", but tourists can NOT. The area of BHB has supported collectors for many generations. Now however, it is becoming famous worldwide. If the number of visitors becomes multiplied several times, and the collector numbers rise exponentially with the heightened awareness ---the ability of the nursery ground to sustain its role in replenishing species would be dangerously compromised.
I doubt most of the people interested in the sancuary concept would have a big problem with a small number of collector permist being issued, with strict limits imposed to prevent unethical collectors from damaging the system

If you would like to push for this limited and controlled form of collection, we can talk about this on this forum, and probably many would help you.


This sounds like you have your nose out of joint because you are afraid of the sanctuary idea hurting your future collecting. It is laughable to imagine you a "champion" for the rights of sailboaters or for "navigation law".
What is utterly ridiculous, is your attacking anything that scares you about the future of collecting. Again, why not see if local collectors can have special permits, and tourists can not...and that each collector has to follow "take guidelines" as with lobster.



There is no need for dive bouys in the channel. There is no need to effect the navigation of boats passing under the bridge. There is a need to prevent selfish collectors from depopulating rare speices, and feeling it is their God given right to do so....
In the entire time I have been diving at the bridge, I have NEVER seen or heard of this passage issue in the channel east of the main channel.
We do not have problems with boats going past the sailboat anchoring area, and the proposed zone should have zero effect on boaters navigation--it should only have effects on collectors....and maybe just of the number of collectors and the amount of their take in a specific area.

Shockingly childish and petty comment... I hope you were not really serious when you wrote that---from the large number of posts of yours I have read through the years, while I did not always agree with you, I would have never imagined you such a small person that you would really think or act this way...even if you were not serious, I think you should apologize to the forum on this issue...wow.



More childish rantings. I have an image of you writing this with tears in your eyes, and constant pummeling of your desk
Try to remember you are a diver.
The county is supposed to allow multiple user groups to enjoy county resources.
The county needs to support the divers as much as it needs to support the fisherman. If we ever had problems because there were too many immature divers and fisherman to co-exist ( divers paying no attention to fishing lines and sometimes getting hooked... fisherman throwing their lines where they think they might be able to hook a diver), then the sensible solution would be divers get the 2 hours previous to high tide, the high tide, and the hour after slack high tide, and the fisherman get the other 20 hours per day for their exclusive use.
But this would be required only if huge numbers at the park decided to act like morons...and honestly, most of the interactions I have seen have been far more mature and "nice".


DD, you need to "man up" with your attitude. Get over this.
Sit down with me at the park and discuss solutions to the issue, rather than making posts like this to incite the entire forum. Like it or not, there are a bunch of us who will be trying to make things better for the future. I believe your collecting can still be possible, and in all liklihood, any imposed limits would probably be for a much larger take volume than you would ever want.
Instead of all this drama, work with us on a solution the locals here can all agree to.
How about sending me an email and planning this ... dan@sfdj.com

My intention was to make people think about the consequences of more government intervention in diving activities.

I DO think there is a huge issue with navigation and diving.

I DO think the county may be unwittingly subjecting themselves to additional liability by designating this as a diving/sanctuary. Once done, there is some degree of assurance that the designated area is safe and it should NOT, knowlingly overlap the ONLY navigable channel for certain vessels.

I DO think the county (for diver safety) should institute a buffer (safety zone) around the fishing area. We don't designate fishing and swimming area in the same exact area do we? The County is smart enough to put No Swimming signage up under the fishing pier on Peanut Island, why should they not do the same here? (Once they stick their big government nose into it).

I DO think you should move forward to propose a restriction on fishing from the designated fishing pier based on the tidal schedule...That would be extremely well received by the fishing public AND Law Enforcement.....let's see how far that idea goes...

Also, I had no idea that your proposal to allow recreational collection at the site (but not commercial) would be acceptable to divers. If they do THAT, I might be satisfied, BTW, State laws already define recreational limits for this type of collection, there is no need to add or try to complicate the situation with special rules.

So you propose to have SPECIAL DAY Permits be issued by the county for diving there right now. with the intent to regulate collection? Issuing special COUNTY, diving permits is the exact thing that I am concerned about "once they sick their nose in the tent". Guess you see no problem with that either?

Lastly, what EXACTLY is the proposal? To allow limited take, no take? take of species other than tropical marine life (which is defined by state statute). I think the County did a poor job of explaining exactly WHAT they want to do. There is no definitive plan proposed at all.

They simply provide a proposed boundary and a list of species observed at the site. Incidentally, I saw no information which demonstrated this area was much different than other similar areas. Was there any type of control samples taken to document what was so different about the bridges? Is it shading that is unique?

Obviously an extenive species list has little or no value in documenting the uniqueness of the site if the comparison is made to other sites that have not been subject to thousands of man-hour of observations.... Is there any quantitative data from the scientific community on this specific site? At the meeting we heard from a few scientists who seemed to STRONGLY SUPPORT collection of marine organisms at the bridge/park.

I personally think the county should leave the divers and fishrman alone. I thhink that IF the county was worried about habitat at the site, they could dredge out some areas and place rock and rubble on the bottom and also do a better job of stormwater control at the park.

 

[Shcubasteve]

DD, as an avid salt water aquarist, I too enjoy recreational fish collecting- heck, I even plan special dives around getting the fish home successfully.... as Ive stated before, I reluctantly support the current and proposed no- take zones. For the good of divers everywhere, the neat wildlife at the bridge should be protected.

DanV: you make good points:

The area of BHB has supported collectors for many generations. Now however, it is becoming famous worldwide. .

I couldn't agree more
...but I disagree with you on occasion.

This clearly being the real issue for you....because you are a tropical fish collector, the entire sanctuary idea is obnoxious to you....

Thats a hasty generalization. I collect fish, but also support the no take zone for the good of divers everywhere

.... permits for "take", but tourists can NOT.

this makes no sense to me- Any avid fish collector knows that a critter that will only live in a bucket for an hour, maybe two tops. For this reason, anyone who lives more then an hour away wont be collecting fish- this pretty much excludes all tourists who are probably staying in hotels. Also, Ive got a relatively large aquarium- 150 gal. Even with this capacity, I can only take one or two, maybe three fish PER MONTH. Once the aquarium is stocked, Ill take even less. I would think that most recreational collectors are similar.
.

...If you would like to push for this limited and controlled form of collection, we can talk about this on this forum....Sit down with me at the park and discuss solutions to the issue, rather than making posts like this to incite the entire forum.... .

Sorry bud, but you don't rule the forum- A lot of folks support your goal, including myself, not everyone- "Get over this". don't bully someone who doesn't agree with you. Personal attacks for example-
.
.

..you need to "man up" with your attitude. Get over this. ..... There is a need to prevent selfish collectors from depopulating rare species, and feeling it is their God given right to do so....
...I have an image of you writing this with tears in your eyes, and constant pummeling of your desk....

back to civil conversations..
.

.fisherman throwing their lines where they think they might be able to hook a diver....

This EXACT scenario has happened at least twice while Ive been at the bridge, both times involving a sheriff's officer. No lie. No diver should go under the fishing pier and according the the officer they will arrest anyone who does.


What makes since to me would be to outlaw (gasp) commercial collecting of fish/critters. I understand everyone needs to make a living, but its these guys who collect TONS of critters that are not for personal use.

Anyone who is going to the bridge to collect on any kind of regular basis will still do so no matter the current or proposed "rules". Head to the other side of the channel and its fair game for anyone- even if the proposed sanctuary takes effect. Heck, even before the current no take zone, Ive used my kayak to access the less-dove areas on the east side of the channel

 

[danvolker]

Sorry bud, but you don't rule the forum- A lot of folks support your goal, including myself, not everyone- "Get over this". don't bully someone who doesn't agree with you. Personal attacks for example-

Shcubasteve,
If you read the post(s) DD aimed at me, you should be able to imagine that my initial response was to get pissed. But I tried to act like a grown up, and I decided to try to deal with what I thought the real issue was.
I maximally toned down my responses to DD, and tried hard to leave the door wide open for honest and calm exchanges-- I even tried to come up with solutions for him....to me this did not feel like I was bullying. At least not when compared to his goading and baiting

I also was not trying to suggest I have any more voice than anyone else on the board...what I do suggest is that DD frequents the BHB, and I do as well.
Important issues are better discussed in person..and this is one of the more important issues we have ever needed to deal with on scuba board.

I agree that the commercial collectors are the ones who should be severely restricted or excluded, BUT what I was saying was NOT that either... I wanted to talk with DD ( as a collector, and hear as much of the viewpoint as possible, and now I would also want to know as much from you as possible. I don't think most of us on scubaboard know enough yet about collecting, or collecting at the park, for us to have intelligent discussions about collecting, or to have optimal solutions yet...I want to help in this issue, and for this to happen, I need to sit down with people like DD and yourself.

 

[Angry Turtle]

....This EXACT scenario has happened at least twice while Ive been at the bridge, both times involving a sheriff's officer. No lie. No diver should go under the fishing pier and according the the officer they will arrest anyone who does.....

Steve, (or anyone reading) are you aware of a county code, state rule or equivalent that makes this true? I have been looking since I first saw your post, but have not found anything as of yet.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I believe that there are some state statutes that prohibit individuals from deliberatly interfering with someone who is lawfully hunting or fishing. I wonder if diving under the fishing peir and blowing bubbles could reasonably be assumed to consistute interference?

 

[danvolker]

I believe that there are some state statutes that prohibit individuals from deliberatly interfering with someone who is lawfully hunting or fishing. I wonder if diving under the fishing peir and blowing bubbles could reasonably be assumed to consistute interference?

Interesting. The thing is, this is a county park which is supposed to support "many" user groups. Back up a moment and look at the lake Worth public beach and fishing pier. I have videos I shot a few years ago, of the whole pier full of fisherman, many fishing poles bent with obviously struggling fish fighting them in the water ( attracting sharks), and with several of the fish cleaning stations showing massive amounts of blood pouring directly into the water at the side of the pier, not 30 feet away from a few 9 to 12 year olds swimming and playing in waiste deep water....So here you have user groups which do not belong together, but the county or state has no interest in removing the right to the resource for either group.
I would consider it may be unlikely that our concerns or the fisherman's concerns about each other, will be taken seriously by the park or county authorities, and this is a "good" thing at the BHB. We should not need law enforcement or government to enjoy such a resource together. It would take a huge fight to ever get this to a controlled scenario, and this has nothing to do with the proposed sanctuary initiative.....
Maybe we should run a bunch of polls on what most of us really want out of this....
I for one:

• Do not want to change the regulations regarding fishing
• Do not want to change any rules regarding diver use of the facility with one exception
• exception is commerical collecting or large takes by non-commercial collectors-- given the potential for a great many MORE commercial collectors to decide theyt need to begin working this now famous area

An indirect byproduct I would not mind working on, given that we have a large number of people mobilized for this, is the request to shut down the dredging of the Lake Worth Inlet during the 3 hours prior to peak high tide, and turning it back on around the end of high tide....this would mitigate the damage potential if the rybovitch plans go forward, and for just normal dredging for the navigation of the channel aspect, this would prevent poor vis at the BHB, and help improve the water quality during the hour preceeding high tide, and during slack high tide. Good for tourism, good for speices at the BHB that are already stressed by multiple factors ( reduction in turbidity and pollutants in the suspended silt from dredging).