FloridaFishinFool

I'd really like to try and break out of some old established patterns and work on some new ones- which is why I just bought some new lures that will make me fish differently. I never do jigging or drop-shot and I think in 2015 I would like to try it. Something different at least...

No I just thought I would open the door to discussing it not realizing it had already been discussed. I actually did a search for it before I posted it and did not find any previous discussion of it. My apologies for the overlapping posts. If moderators would like to delete it I am OK with it.

Since he won't be fishing it, I sure hope he will be one of the TV hosts for the Classic! Who could be better calling the shots fish by fish?

So what do you think of KVD missing out on next year's Classic? http://www.bassmaster.com/news/kvd-ill-be-back KVD: I'll be back There will be no 2015 Classic appearance after 24 in a row By Steve Wright AUG 23, 2014 UNION SPRINGS, N.Y. — It didn't become official until Saturday's weigh-in at the Bassmaster Elite Series Cayuga Lake tournament was complete. But it's a done deal now: Kevin VanDam, the most accomplished angler in B.A.S.S. history, didn't qualify to compete in what would have been his 25th Bassmaster Classic in a row. That's almost unimaginable because VanDam has been so consistently good for so long. KVD handled the bad news just like he's handled everything else in his brilliant career -- with class and honesty. "I can promise you, I hate it right now," he said at the Frontenac Park weigh-in site. "But I don't care who you are or how good you are, it's going to happen eventually. It's very humbling out here." (click link above if interested in entire article)

Edit: post removed due to copyright violations. Please do not post entire articles here unless you authored them.

http://www.wildwilderness.org/aasg/swamp.htm COMMERCIAL AIRBOAT OPERATIONS DAMAGING BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE Please try to send in a short comment letter on the following action alert by June 3rd. Letters are critical because the NPS has strong local political support for continuing these destructive commercial airboat operations. Thanks, Brian Scherf Florida Biodiversity Project A group of commercial airboat operators that conduct airboat "thrill" rides to tourists have caused wide-scale resource damage to the SW Addition Lands of Big Cypress National Preserve adjacent to Everglades City. Airboats have killed mangroves, caused extensive soil rutting in marshes, impacted wildlife, and prevented other boaters and canoeists from enjoying the area. The area is also designated critical habitat for the endangered Florida manatee and impact from airboats may have caused the deaths of three manatees. Besides the Manatee, the area is habitat for 17 other endangered, threatened, or Species of Special Concern . Airboat operators are making almost $3 million a year operating the rides while damaging sensitive natural resources of the Preserve. This is clear-cut case of public lands being degraded for private profit. The 729,000 acre Big Cypress National Preserve in southwest Florida is a national treasure and is administered by the National Park Service (NPS). As one of the largest public land areas in the east, it is a critical area for preserving biodiversity with 34 endangered and threatened animals and 124 rare species of plants. Decades of mismanagement of off-road vehicle (ORV) use in Big Cypress National Preserve has resulted in significant damage to it's soils, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife. Unlike a National Park, ORV use is a permitted regulated activity in the Preserve but the NPS is required to protect the Preserve's sensitive ecology. In response to the resource damage by airboats, the NPS has released an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the commercial airboat operations and the stated main objective of the EA is to continue these airboat tours instead of protecting the natural resources of the Preserve. The EA is completely inadequate and has been cleverly written to downplay resource impacts. It's now time for the vast majority of the public who want responsible regulations placed on destructive airboat use to raise their voices and demand effective management. The NPS is now seeking public comments on the draft EA. We need the public to advocate the strongest possible resource protection measures by sending in public comments by June 3rd. Please write and emphasize these major points: * Because of substantial direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. * The EA is inadequate because it does not include a reasonable range of alternatives such as passive uses which include canoeing and kayaking instead of airboat use. Recommend the passive use alternative. * The EA fails to analyze specific management actions that would avoid and/or minimize adverse resource impacts such as prohibiting airboat use in sensitive wetlands, areas important to wildlife, when conditions are unsuitable, or conflicts with other recreational users. * The EA fails to analyze the scale, rate, and intensity of airboat use in the SW Addition. * The EA fails to analyze the way in which the airboats are operated including "thrill" maneuvers. * The EA fails to analyze specific airboat impacts to soils, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife in the SW Addition. * Require closure of areas significantly impacted by airboats to allow recovery. Send your comments to: For further info contact: Wallace A. Hibbard Brian Scherf Superintendent Biodiversity Project Big Cypress National Preserve rscherf350@aol.com HCR 61, Box 110 Ochopee, FL 34141 (941) 695-2000 This document was prepared by Wild Wilderness. To learn more about ongoing industry-backed congressional efforts to motorize, commercialize, and privatize America's public lands, contact: Scott Silver, Executive Director, Wild Wilderness 248 NW Wilmington Avenue, Bend OR 97701 Phone (541) 385-5261 E-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org

I'm not sure the airport argument is a good analogy. With airboats, they bring the noise to your front door. You are stuck. But with airports the noise is where the airport is and people have move in next to the airport by their own choice. Back in the old days airports were usually built away from town and away from the majority of the population, but what has happened over time is the people have moved close in around the airports that have no where else to go. They are not moving. Buying a home next to an airport is a choice each person has to make to accept the noise, but airboats bring the noise right to you in places you thought were isolated and private and peaceful and tranquil and that is where the fight is coming from. I would like to see laws put on the books statewide to address the airboats running down vegetation that we know contains wildlife they thoughtlessly run down every day in this state. If they want to stay in the main channels of rivers and lakes away from plants like other boaters do for the most part, that would be fine, but when plowing through cattails and other standing plants is where we should draw the line. And it may be coming too...

Airboats are unsafe and that is another issue I had planned on getting into because a lot of airboats are unregulated home made pieces of junk that should not even be on the water, much less even used in the condition some of them are in. As for habitat destruction, I will have to disagree with you on this one. My trolling motor may chop a few plants here and there, but airboats can level an entire football field of plants in minutes uprooting some and pushing them down into the water killing them, not to mention all the birds' nests destroyed. What I saw out on lake Toho was airboat companies taking in money to give their tourist customers a thrill and one of those thrills was plowing through vegetation and cattails, often making quick turns almost sliding the airboat sideways loaded up with people literally plowing up the vegetation leaving it uprooted, shoved down into the water and just leaving behind it a trail of destruction. I will not go back to east lake toho as long as this type of thing is allowed to happen out there. As for kayakers, some areas require kayaks to have an orange flag raised above the boat about 6 feet as a guess (I have not checked regulations on this, just going from memory here) and airboats and other boaters like bass boats are required to stay at least 100 feet away from kayaks so as to not cause injury or flip them over. Usually when I hear about some boater being killed in an accident around here, a majority of injuries and deaths are from airboats. I will see if I can dig up some images to share here of environmental damage airboats cause.

Other headlines in Florida news over the years: Lake Griffin Airboat Restriction Likely Residents near Lake Griffin may not have to endure late-night noise from airboats much longer.City leaders said Monday night they intend to restrict airboats on Lake Griffin, just like they did two years ago for Lake Harris.The reason? Too much noise - especially late at night.Airboats, which often are equipped with airplane engines, are noisy vessels. The recent opening of alligator-hunting season on Lake Griffin has lured many airboats there to hunt at night, to the annoyance of nearby residents, city Police Chief Chuck Idell said. Osceola to review airboat ordinance When Osceola County commissioners voted last month to limit the use of its public boat ramps by airboat tour operators, the idea was to eliminate a liability problem. But tour operators say it effectively eliminated their ability to make a living. The ordinance limits the use of the ramps to no more than twice a day per company. The boats must not carry more than four passengers including the captain. "This will put us out of business," said Debbie Clark, owner of Spirit of the Swamp, an airboat-tour company. Vote on airboat noise postponed until January December 20, 2006 Osceola County -- County commissioners agreed Monday to postpone voting on an airboat-noise ordinance until Jan. 22 so county attorneys can tweak the measure's language, officials said, Paul Nguyen, assistant county attorney, said there were "kinks" in the language that need to be ironed out. The measure follows wording of a state law that says airboat engines must be equipped with automotive-style mufflers. Commissioners have the option of amending the measure in the future to restrict the times of day boats can be used. Mufflers might be required on airboats September 29, 2005 GAINESVILLE -- The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is considering requiring mufflers on airboats. The commission voted last week to come up with a new policy on airboat noise and will conduct a public hearing on the issue at its Nov. 30 meeting in Key Largo. Airboat owners say their community generally supports the use of mufflers, said Jerry Wetherington, president of the United Sportsmen and Airboaters Alliance. "Everybody seemed to agree that the airboat organizations are going to work toward putting mufflers on our boats and work with the manufacturers to develop quieter props," Wetherington said. Airboat Affair Stirs Concern For Lake, Birds By Craig Quintana of The Sentinel Staff, You don't have to tell Leonard Harrell he and other airboaters have an image problem.Harrell, president of the fledgling Florida Airboat Federation, knows the refrain: ''They are noisy. They get close to residential areas, and it's like an airplane coming over your house. If they hang in the area, it's aggravating.''When operated improperly, the boats can be annoying, if not ear-splitting, Harrell agrees.That is why on Labor Day weekend the federation is organizing the ''First Annual Airboat Jamboree'' at Lake Harney, which separates Seminole and Volusia counties. Leesburg Airboat Ban Goes Too Far By Jacqueline W. and Jacqueline H. Ashley, August 19, 1992 In reference to a proposed Leesburg ban on airboats, I would like to clarify previously published references to the alligator egg collection project. This is a project funded and operated by the private alligator industry, yet sanctioned by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.Alligator egg collection occurs throughout the state. This year, Lake Griffin was one of the chosen sites. Lake Harris may or may not be chosen as a future site and Venetian Gardens may or may not be the launch site for the collection team. Osceola airboats bow to curfew By Daphne Sashin, Sentinel Staff Writer, March 20, 2007 KISSIMMEE -- Osceola County commissioners voted 4-1 Monday for a nighttime ban on airboats on two lakes. The decision was a compromise with boaters, who complained an earlier proposal was too restrictive. The ordinance, which takes effect immediately, prohibits airboats on heavily populated West Lake Tohopekaliga and East Lake Toho from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. Commissioner Tom Franklin opposed the motion. An earlier proposal that alarmed airboat operators would have set the curfew on all but a few lakes and would have stayed in effect an hour later. Curfew? No way, airboaters say By Daphne Sashin, Sentinel Staff Writer, January 31, 2007 KISSIMMEE -- Plans to impose a nighttime curfew for airboats are on hold for 60 days while Osceola County officials meet with airboat operators in search of common ground. In the meantime, the commission agreed only to enforce a state law that went into effect July 1 requiring airboats to be equipped with mufflers. At a packed meeting Monday night, the crowd of airboat users said they had spent hundreds of dollars to comply with the state law. They criticized the county for not consulting them when it proposed a ban on airboat use between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. on most public waters, with some exceptions. State wants quieter airboats By Don Wilson, Sentinel Staff Writer, December 4, 2005 Airboat owners are going to have to use mufflers on their motors, not just flexible exhaust pipes, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission decided last week at its meeting in Key Largo. They'll have six months to muffle their motors before FWC officers start handing out tickets. The commissioners also decided to promote a campaign to make the craft even quieter, including an event next spring to see who can come up with the quietest airboat. Hydrilla spraying at Lake Toho Water managers are using herbicides to control hydrilla a section of Lake Tohopekaliga on Monday and Tuesday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you still think airboat owners and operators have the same rights to be on the water as everyone else? The person yes, the airboat, no. And not just no, but HELL NO! We the people will not allow airboat owners to just run all over us. We will enforce when and where and how airboats can be used. Believe that!

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/75532F458F1935EF85257641004EFD6F Number: AGO 2009-45 Date: September 29, 2009 Subject: County imposed airboat curfew Mr. David W. Wagner County Attorney Alachua County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602 RE: COUNTIES – ORDINANCES – CURFEWS – AIRBOATS – FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION – authority of county to adopt airboat curfew. ss. 327.46 and 327.60, Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla. Dear Mr. Wagner: On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following questions: 1. Does a county-imposed curfew on airboats that is based upon eliminating airboat operational noise create a boating-restricted area subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission approval pursuant to Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida. 2. Does a county-imposed curfew prohibiting the operation of airboats on specified water bodies in Alachua county during certain hours create a boating restricted area governed by the criteria and procedures in Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida? 3. Does a county-imposed curfew prohibiting the operation of airboats on all water bodies in Alachua County during certain hours create a boating-restricted area governed by the criteria and procedures in Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida? 4. Does section 327.60(2)(e), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida, allow a local government to adopt an ordinance imposing an airboat curfew, for reasons other than public safety, by a two-thirds vote of the governing body? In sum: 1. - 3. A county-imposed curfew on airboats that is based upon eliminating airboat operational noise does not create a boating-restricted area within the scope of section 327.46, Florida Statutes, which would be subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission approval pursuant to Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida. 4. Section 327.60(2)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes counties to adopt ordinances governing the operation of vessels which may discriminate against airboats when such ordinances are adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body enacting such an ordinance. In enacting any such ordinance, the county must balance its concern for the public health, safety, and welfare with constitutional considerations and a recognition that any such regulation must not be in violation of constitutional protections afforded to the public for the use of, and access to, state sovereignty lands. According to information you have supplied to this office, Alachua County is considering adopting a curfew on airboat operation on county waterways. The purpose of this ordinance is to deal with the noise caused by airboats on county water bodies, especially the disruption caused by that noise during nighttime hours. Alachua County currently has a noise ordinance prohibiting the operation of motor boats or watercraft in any water body in the county in a manner so as to exceed the sound level of 90 dba at a distance of 15 meters (50 feet), or the nearest shoreline, whichever instance is less. The ordinance under consideration by the county commission would impose a curfew on the nighttime operation of airboats. In light of amendments to Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, during the 2009 legislative session, you have questions about the county’s authority to establish such a curfew and any applicable legislative requirements for the adoption of such an ordinance. Questions One - Three Your first three questions, dealing with local legislation on the issue of boating-restricted areas, will be considered together. In the absence of federal legislation and subject to the powers of Congress over navigable waters, Florida has full regulatory authority over navigable waters within state limits and may even legislate in the area of navigation in appropriate circumstances.[1] In recognition of this authority, the state has enacted Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, which regulates the registration and safety of vessels using Florida waters, and the provisions of Chapter 861, Florida Statutes, making the obstruction of navigability a criminal offense.[2] The state has delegated the protection of navigable waters within counties to local governments, provided there is no interference with federal governmental control within the county’s jurisdiction.[3] In this regard, section 327.60, Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to adopt ordinances or local laws relating to the operation and equipment of vessels and provides limitations on that authority. Section 327.60, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 14, Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida, provides that "(1) The provisions of this chapter and chapter 328 shall govern the operation, equipment, and all other matters relating thereto whenever any vessel shall be operated upon the waters of this state or when any activity regulated hereby shall take place thereon. (2) Nothing in this chapter or chapter 328 shall be construed to prevent the adoption of any ordinance or local regulation relating to operation of vessels, except that a county or municipality shall not enact, continue in effect, or enforce any ordinance or local regulation: (a) Establishing a vessel or associated equipment performance or other safety standard, imposing a requirement for associated equipment, or regulating the carrying or use of marine safety articles; ( Relating to the design, manufacture, installation, or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel; © Regulating any vessel upon the Florida Intracoastal Waterway; (d) Discriminating against personal watercraft; (e) Discriminating against airboats, for ordinances adopted after July 1, 2006, unless adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body enacting such ordinance; (f) Regulating the anchoring of vessels other than live-aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of mooring fields permitted as provided in s. 327.40; (g) Regulating engine or exhaust noise, except as provided in s. 327.65; or (h) That conflicts with any provisions of this chapter or any amendments thereto or rules adopted thereunder." This statute, as amended, became effective July 1, 2009.[4] Further, section 327.22, Florida Statutes, authorizes a county that expends money for the patrol, regulation, and maintenance of any lakes, rivers, or waters and for other boating-related activities in the county to regulate vessels resident in the county. Section 327.46, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 13, Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida, authorizes the creation of boating-restricted areas "for any purpose necessary to protect the safety of the public if such restrictions are necessary based on boating accidents, visibility, hazardous currents or water levels, vessel traffic congestion, or other navigational hazards."[5] Counties are given specific authority to establish certain boating-restricted areas by ordinance including ordinances establishing an idle speed, no wake boating-restricted area;[6] an ordinance establishing a slow speed, minimum wake boating-restricted area;[7] an ordinance establishing a vessel-exclusion zone for such things as public bathing beaches or swim areas and dams, spillways, or flood control structures.[8] Nothing in section 327.46, Florida Statutes, contemplates the creation of boating-restricted areas for purposes other than the protection of the safety of the public. Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, imposes specific requirements for noise abatement of vessel engines.[9] Counties are authorized to adopt additional noise pollution and exhaust regulations pursuant to section 327.65(2), Florida Statutes, as amended by section 15, Chapter 2009-86, Laws of Florida. This office, in Attorney General Opinion 2005-58, advised Citrus County that it was prohibited from adopting an ordinance creating a boating-restricted area near residential properties for the purpose of vessel noise abatement outside of the specific grant of authority provided in Chapter 327, Florida Statutes. In that opinion, the county questioned whether it could create vessel restricted areas, such as idle speed zones, near residential properties as a means of controlling unnecessary vessel noise. The opinion recognizes the statutory and administrative rule prohibiting adoption of any boating-restricted area "for the purpose of noise abatement" and concludes that, while the county could adopt more stringent noise abatement legislation pursuant to Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, it could not create a boating-restricted area for the purpose of noise abatement. The ordinance Alachua County proposes is not an ordinance to create a boating-restricted area as defined in section 327.46, Florida Statutes. Section 327.60(2), Florida Statutes, as amended, states that no provision of chapter 327 should be construed to prevent the adoption of any ordinance relating to the operation of vessels with certain specified exceptions. It appears to be the purpose of Alachua County’s ordinance to regulate the operation of airboats on county water bodies during particular hours of the day. Pursuant to the statute, a county may not adopt or enforce any ordinance or local regulation "[d]iscriminating against airboats . . . unless adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body enacting such ordinance[.]"[10] Alachua County proposes to adopt a curfew restricting the operation of airboats on county waterways and section 327.60(2), Florida Statutes, would appear to authorize the adoption and enforcement of such an ordinance if it is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body of the county. In addition, because a curfew on the operation of airboats would not appear to come within the scope of section 327.46, Florida Statutes, such an ordinance would not require approval by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission pursuant to that statute.[11] Question Four You have also asked whether section 327.60(2)(e), Florida Statutes, would allow a local government to adopt an airboat operation curfew by a two-thirds vote of the governing body. You have provided no information on the terms of such an ordinance and this office has no authority to pass on the validity of local legislation.[12] However, any such legislation would be tested against certain constitutional considerations and I outline these below. Section 327.60(2), Florida Statutes, specifically provides that nothing in Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, prevents the adoption and enforcement of ordinances "discriminating against airboats . . . [if such ordinances are] adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body enacting such ordinance[.]"[13] Whether a court would find that a particular ordinance such as a curfew ordinance specifically applying only to airboats falls within the scope of this statute will depend on the particular terms of the ordinance and on its application and enforcement. I would note that federal courts have recognized that the imposition of a curfew implicates the fundamental right to "move about freely in public."[14] The implication of a fundamental right will subject any such ordinance to a strict scrutiny review by the courts. To survive this strict review, a classification created by an ordinance must promote a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Any such ordinance must use the least restrictive means to accomplish these goals.[15] In addition, the Alachua County Commission, in enacting any such ordinance, must balance its concern for the public health, safety, and welfare with a recognition that any such regulation must not be in violation of constitutional protections afforded to the public for the use of, and access to, state sovereignty land. Thus, the commission must recognize and accommodate the constitutionally derived protection known as the public trust doctrine.[16] In sum, section 327.60(2)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes counties to adopt ordinances governing the operation of vessels which may discriminate against airboats when such ordinances are adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body enacting such an ordinance. In enacting any such ordinance, the county must balance its concern for the public health, safety, and welfare with constitutional considerations and a recognition that any such regulation must not be in violation of constitutional protections afforded to the public for the use of, and access to, state sovereignty lands.[17] Sincerely, Bill McCollum Attorney General BM/tgh --------------------------------------------------------------- [1] See generally 56 Fla. Jur. 2d Water s. 152, and see Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 05-58 (2005).) [2] See, e.g., s. 861.02, Fla. Stat., "Obstructing watercourse;" s. 861.05, Fla. Stat., "Obstruction to navigation by bridges;" and s. 861.06, Fla. Stat., "Obstructing harbors." [3] See Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County v. Board of Pilot Commissioners of the Port of Pensacola, 42 So. 697 (Fla. 1906) (holding that the depth of the water in a river, harbor, bay, or port in a county is one of the chief elements of its value, and its protection from injury by being filled in is within the purposes for which county governments are established, even though the harbor or bay is also and largely used for passage to and from, and commerce with, points beyond the county);Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County v. Ford, 419 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (a county water and navigation control authority could consider navigational factors in regulating the construction of docks under a special act recognizing the right of an upland owner to construct a dock in front of the upland as provided by state law, but permitting the authority to make reasonable rules and regulations for construction thereof; moreover, the authority's decision to deny a private dock permit application on the ground the structure would pose a hindrance to navigation was supported by substantial competent evidence in the form of statements by qualified persons that the waterway was heavily traveled and adversely affected by shoaling, tides, and currents, notwithstanding that the proposed dock complied with deed lot restrictions, the authority’s rules, and city zoning ordinances, and was considered reasonable by the United States Army Corps of Engineers). [4] See s. 64, Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla., providing an effective date. [5] Section 327.46(1), Fla. Stat., as amended by s. 13, Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla. [6] Section 327.46(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat., as amended by s. 13, Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla. [7] Section 327.46(1)(b)2., Fla. Stat., as amended by s. 13, Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla. [8] Section 327.46(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. And see s. 327.46(1)©, Fla. Stat., authorizing local governments to adopt additional ordinances creating other boating-restricted areas for certain navigability issues. [9] See s. 327.65(1), Florida Statutes, requiring the exhaust of vessel engines to be muffled by equipment that muffles the noise of the exhaust in a reasonable manner. [10] Section 327.60(2)(e), Fla. Stat., as amended by s. 14, Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla. [11] See s. 327.46(1), Fla. Stat., as amended by s. 13, Ch. 2009-86, Laws of Fla., which states that no boating restricted ordinance shall take effect until the commission has reviewed the ordinance and determined that the ordinance is necessary to protect public safety pursuant to the statute; and Collier County Board of County Commissioners v. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 993 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). [12] See s. 16.01(3), Fla. Stat., authorizing the Attorney General to issue opinions on questions of state law. [13] Section 327.60(2)(e), Fla. Stat. [14] See, e.g., Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville, 992 F.Supp. 823 (W.D. Va., 1997),affirmed, 159 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998), petition for cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018, 119 S.Ct. 1252, 143 L.Ed.2d 349 (1999); Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. Tex., 1993),cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1127, 114 S.Ct. 2134, 128 L.Ed.2d 864 (1994); Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 94-02 (1994); U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14. [15] See State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2004) and Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 94-02 (1994) and cases cited therein. [16] See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 90 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1956);White v. Hughes, 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 85-47 (1985), 79-71 (1979), and 73-430 (1973). [17] This constitutionally derived protection is known as the public trust doctrine.See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 90 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes, 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 94-02 (1994), 85-47 (1985), 79-71 (1979), and 73-430 (1973).

Thanks for the responses. I consider an airboat as a great way to reach impossible to get to places where no other boat can go. So that is a great plus for airboats and why they are so popular and used by fire, police, and rescue. Vegetation in the water is not an obstacle for them especially since some airboats can move around just fine on dry land. But there are some cons to airboats and as already stated they can be quite noisy. But the real issue with airboats is that they are extremely destructive to the natural environment and tear up vegetation and leave a trail of destruction behind them. One reponse above was that airboats have the same rights to be on the water as any other boat and I would have to strongly disagree with this. I would say it is the opposite. Airboats DO NOT have the same rights to be on the same waters as all other boats because of the loudness factor and destruction of environment factor. In fact, here in Florida, many counties and local governments are closing in on airboats reducing the areas they can be operated in by passing increasingly stiffer laws and regulations for them. A question that must be asked- we all know that to live on the water and have property along side of nice lakes and rivers is more expensive than land not on lakes and rivers. Today such property is at a premium. And if you lived alongside of a nice river or lake, would you want to hear loud airboats inside your home when you are trying to sleep? Or, your babies are trying to sleep and some airboat club is blowing up and down the river with 20 airboats at all times of day and night? Do airboat owners have the right to disturb countless numbers of people with their loud noise? The answer to this is increasingly no they do not. Many governments are developing noise laws for this very reason and will only allow airboats to operate during daylight hours in some places because of this. People have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but airboat owners don't seem to care about the rights of others who don't want to listen to their loud engines and props. So the fight is on here in Florida to close in on airboat owners and operators big time. I use to live about one mile from the St. Johns river here in central Florida and we could hear the airboats where we lived. Think of all the thousands of people living within range of that one airboat owner operator who is disturbing all those people with his one airboat. In a democracy, the majority can rule by power of the vote, and if more people vote against airboats than for them when these airboat restriction laws are brought into existence, the people who want peace and quiet inside their homes will win. So airboats do not have the same rights as everyone else. It is everyone else who are enforcing their rights to peace and quiet on their own property and inside their homes, and they are telling airboat owners and operators you do not have the right to disturb us and our peace and tranquility just because you want to operate an airboat. But the worst part about airboats is how destructive they are to the environment and vegetation. I once tried to fish on east lake Toho in central Florida. What a nightmare! There was freshly uprooted cattails and other vegetation floating all over the lake greatly reducing my enjoyment of the lake as a fisherman. It was a mess. Try casting in that mess. You will foul up nearly every cast. So the question is now do airboat owners have the right to completely destroy a lake and make it just about useless for anyone else? I'd say no. The culprit behind this vegetation destruction was a commerical airboat company who were selling tickets daily to tourists to ride an airboat and what a thrill it must be to pick out some vegetation to drive the airboat through it to satisfy the paying customer. Never mind there are birds nesting in there. Just run them down. Who cares? So here is another very good reason to create new laws to further isolate and restrict airboats. If cigarette smokers are constantly tossing their cigarette butts out their windows and onto the ground as litter, shouldn't cigarette smokers have to pay for that cleanup? Tax the crap out of their cigarettes and make them pay for the cleanup of their mess and pollution. And the same thing should be done to airboat owners and operators. Destroying the environment and disturbing the peace and quiet should cost them, not us. When it comes time to vote on new laws for airboats, I won't be siding with any airboat owners. I have seen too much destruction of the environment by them, and having to listen to them disturb me inside my own home for 7 years was long enough.

I have been reading another thread about airboat bass fishing and I would like to start a thread on this issue just to see what the members here think of airboats being used on our lakes, rivers and swamps. What are the pros and cons to airboats? I'll reserve my opinion for now so as to not color the discussion right from the top.

Very true. I left that part out so as to not single out one segment of our population who does that, and I sort of figured that regardless of why they were doing it, other species are also more than likely feeding on it too, and they could be creating a similar feeding frenzy by doing it, while still focusing their efforts on the mullet rather than the other fish. But I have seen them take bucket loads of tiny bream home they fry up like potato chips. Regardless of the species they target, I am going to experiment and see if doing this will put more fish in the boat. I want to try for stripers and sunshine bass too.

Yep, and I have seen people chumming mostly in the St. Johns river using either rabbit food, or even cat food and dog food from time to time, but I thought this stuff was suppose to be better, but after reviewing the promotional video for the product I am not so sure it is anything different than rabbit food. I might do some comparing this coming spring or summer. One thing I noticed in the video was as Bill Dance was talking about the product he mentioned how the pellets had different rates of falling through the water to the bottom, and how some was suppose to suspend in the water and I was not seeing that. It looked like to me all of the pellets were dropping like rocks to the bottom. But when they tossed the dock block solid version into the water, when it dispersed into the water it was in much smaller pieces and dispersed slower than the pellets seemed to disperse. And, when they tossed the dock block into that nice manicured oxygenated home made lake of theirs, when it hit bottom it was still visible. Here in Florida if I did that, that dock block would be buried in 3 or 4 feet of bottom vegetation. So if I used the dock block I would probably carry a gallon milk jug with me and float/suspend the dock block a couple of feet just below the surface probably 20 to 30 feet away from me. I would not want it right under my boat. It would have to be a nice casting distance away from the boat. And if I bought the pellets, I would probably crush a small amount into a near powder form rather than toss in pellets straight to the bottom. I would want more of the bait and attractants suspended in the water as a powder, but that might be difficult to throw far enough away from the boat. I could use some sort of a fabric bag suspended a few feet under a float and put a handful of pellets in there or, even a small chunk of the dock block, and throw it out there casting distance away from the boat.

I was browsing ebay today and came across something I had never seen before: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zebco-Quantum-BPELMS-BX6-Boost-Ignitor-Pellets-Multi-Species-Fishing-/381102592754?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58bb7c12f2 Zebco / Quantum BPELMS BX6 Boost Ignitor Pellets Multi-Species Fishing "Throw out a few handfuls of Zebco Boost Ignitor Pellets into the area that you want to attract fish. This creates your own "hot zone". An exclusive formula developed by Purina that slowly disperses a natural attractant. Slow sinking pellets keep product suspended and in front of the fish longer while they dissolve or are eaten." ---------------------------------- Have any of you tried these pellets? Now I am curious... and I might just try it out soon.

Today, the nice thing about Kingsley lake is how pristine it is, and in many ways is still very much like it would have been 100 or 200 years ago or, more, as though man has not damaged it as you find with most of our other lakes in this state. So it is an excellent Florida lake to fish. Here is a bathymetric map of the lake: http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/RevisedMaps05/ClayMaps/KingsleyClayMap.pdf And I would not exactly describe the bass in that lake as small! Kingsley lake has been producing some record lunkers and they are still in there to this day! Here is a fairly recent article on some of the bass caught there this year. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20140313/COLUMNISTS/140319750 Recent run of big bass being caught at Kingsley Lake By Gary Simpson Columnist Published: Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 8:38 p.m. Recently caught big largemouth bass caught in Kingsley Lake in North Central Florida have created a lot of talk among local bass fishermen. This is the second year in a row that 14+ pound bass have been caught in Kingsley Lake. In 2013, Len Andrews pulled into a dock on the western bank of the lake and weighed one that went over 14 pounds. Afterwards he released the fish unharmed. This year two fish over 14 pounds have been landed, weighed and released. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) accepted the 14 pound 9 ounce bass that Brooks Morrell caught, placing him at the top of the FWC Trophy Catch Program. Brooks indicates that he has landed nine bass over nine pounds, four over 10 pounds and 2 over 13 pounds all in Kingsley Lake. He is also aware of 3 others that have been caught that were over 13 pounds. Over the last 30 years, these probably represent the largest bass caught north of Palatka. Kingsley Lake is a unique lake located partially in Camp Blanding on Highway 16 in western Clay County. In formation the lake is almost perfectly round with a diameter of about three miles. It is one of the deepest natural lakes in Florida with verified depths of 65 feet and rumored locations to be near 80 feet. It is sandy bottomed and located atop Trail Ridge making its water level higher than most of the ground level in Bradford County, which borders the western boundary of Clay County. Unlike other lakes that are located on Trail Ridge, Kingsley’s water level fluctuates very little. That noted stability leads many to suggest that much of the lake’s water must be supplied by springs located in its deepest areas. Due to the lack of fluctuation in the lake’s water level, the shoreline maiden cane cover only potrudes a short distance from the shoreline. Typically maiden cane moves outward into the lake when the water level recedes; consequently the grass provides very little shoreline cover. Due to the depth of the lake, bass and crappie are difficult to locate during times other than their spawn. The lake does have an underwater grass line that circles the lake in about 12 to 20 feet, and as the temperature rises in the summer or chills in the winter, fish can always suspend in its deeper waters in order to find a more comfortable range. The crappies will generally seek the grass line when spawning, and the bass will seek shallower water for their spawn, making both of them more vulnerable at bedding time. Additionally the lake is semiprivate. The only public launch into the lake is in Camp Blanding, and the only parties with access to that launch are service and law enforcement personnel or by being accompanied by one of the former. As a result, the main fish populations are under little pressure. Kingsley Lake is no stranger to large bass. In 1967 Benny Zoltoski was trolling around Kingsley with two bass in his live well that weighed about 10 pounds each. However, when he passed what was then Kingsley Beach and headed to the Officer’s Club in Camp Blanding, he had a huge hit which he thought was a hang-up, until the line-water intersection of his line began to move outward, indicating that the hook was moving toward the surface. Making a long story short, it was not a hang-up but a 16 pound 6 ounce bass that was mounted and hung on the wall of Strickland’s Store for years. The history of record bass in North Central Florida does not all center around Kingsley Lake however. Buddy Wright, a current resident of Keystone Heights, has always fished from a 12 foot jon boat and never fished in a bass tournament; but, in April of 1987 he was having a good day on the St. Johns River, south of Palatka, with a couple of nice catches under his belt that weighed over five pounds each. His last catch of the day – caught on a Bill Norman Weed Walker lure – was a monster that weighed in at 18 pounds and 13 ounces. Unfortunately the fish lost a lot of roe before its first weigh in on a certified accurate scale. The fish was subsequently frozen and thawed out for another certified weight; however, the FWC would not recognize the fish because a wildlife officer did not get to his home until two weeks after notification and after the fish was frozen, thus depriving Buddy of a Florida State Record. All was not lost though, because the International Game Fish Association (IGFA) did recognize Buddy’s catch as a world record for a 16-pound line weight catch, and Buddy has that plaque on his wall beside the replica. Believe it or not the largest bass landed in Bradford, Clay and/or Union Counties according to this research and in recent history came from Brooklyn Lake in Keystone. In 1966 “Forest and Stream Magazine,” which later became “Field and Stream Magazine” published an article about an 18 pound 2 ounce bass that Hugh Paul caught on Brooklyn Lake. Though there have been larger record size bass caught, the gold standard for record largemouth bass is still the 1932 George Perry Bass that weighed 22 pounds 4 ounces with a 32.5 length and 28.5 girth. Manabu Kurita caught a 22 pounds 4.97 ounce bass in Japan on July 2, 2009. Despite bettering the Perry bass by almost an ounce, IGFA rules consider the catch a tie with the Perry bass. In 2006 Mac Weakley foul hooked and landed a 25 pound and .01 ounce bass in a California Lake that was photographed, weighed and released. Paul Nosca has done a significant amount of research on the “25 largest bass ever caught,” and he makes several good and one especially good observation about record largemouth bass. Many of the larger Florida bass have been very long and comparatively light in weight. Bill Whipple caught what is considered to be the world record longest bass in 2002 on Lake Toho. The bass was 33 inches in length but weighed only 14 pounds and 6 ounces. Certainly bass caught in the spawn and full of roe would have a significant weight advantage over fish caught while not spawning. Paul Nosca’s research on the largest 25 bass ever caught can be found online under his name.

***Article photographs and source link not accepted... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Only one comment has been posted to this article, and they claim they have already earned $600.00 to spend on new fishing tackle! Jason • 24 days ago Great program, and between my dad and myself, we received $600 from Bass Pro, Dick's sporting goods and Rapala in gift cards and t-shirts also plus it provides valuable info for FWC

Thanks for the welcome! I think I will enjoy this forum very much!

My family has been in Florida since riding into this state on a mule drawn open wagon from South Carolina in 1878. I am a third generation Floridian born and raised here in the Jacksonville area, and I moved to central Florida back in 1988. I began fishing back around 1968 or so and I have been fishing ever since. Today I live in the middle of the state near Orlando and I prefer freshwater bass fishing to saltwater any day of the week- or year. I am surrounded by some of the best bass fishing places on the planet so I try and make the most of them while I can. At 50 I am beginning to think I have fewer years ahead to fish than I do looking back on those already fished, so I want to make the most of what time is left to me. I now have two young sons ages 1 and 3 and they are a handful and I want to raise them on the water and pass down fishing to them and hopefully both of them will take to it like I did. I work in construction and stagehand work through a local union- not a personal choice mind you, but a requirement for some contracted work. So I am a working-class fisherman who has learned to be practical with my fishing and fishing gear. I do all of my own rod and reel repairs, modifications, and overhauls and have been for more than 30 years. I come from a family of engineers so I am well grounded in what works and what doesn't kind of thing. I love doing research and learning and sharing. What comes around goes around! If it can be of benefit to me, maybe I can share it with others to benefit them as well, and this is why I joined the forum- to learn and to share. I look forward to being a part of this forum.