Palatka Summit Results, 15 October 2005

FRESHWATER FISHERIES SUMMIT RESULTS
PALATKA, FLORIDA
October 15, 2005

Challenges

Habitat loss—spraying in Lochloosa (water lettuce targeted with contact and affected yellow water lillies).FWC working with DEP, press and camp owners to address issue. Need for more monitoring (contractors are not state employees and vary in experience).
COE spraying canals during spawn.Reference UF study. Can timing be changed and still allow COE to maintain goal.
Impact of decaying vegetation on muck development and low dissolved oxygen.
Mechanical harvest option—economic issue as well as sediment stirring ($1,000/acre plus logistic issues and disposal problems*).
County involvement in spraying (DEP permits them), FWC can help determine who is spraying and assist the public in communicating issues related to fish and wildlife conservation concerns.
Unmarked boats doing spraying, including no FL numbers—call Wildlife Alert (*FWC) and we can investigate.
Squeaky wheel gets results, speak up and FWC will assist in ensuring you know who to talk to, the biological realities and legal framework for who is responsible.
Conflict between FWC habitat restoration efforts, including planting desirable aquatic, and spraying. Sometimes it is needed to prevent nuisance plants from taking over, but overspraying and non-target plants being sprayed are problems. Public eyes help to focus on these issues. Contact DEP who enforces the permits (see handout for numbers).
Shoreline habitat loss, increase of docks, seawalls, and other development. Solutions under DEP guidelines include wider spacing for light penetration (vs. safety issues).
Tennessee fishing club use of cameras/scales/rulers for “paper tournaments” to eliminate not only harvest but movement of fish from beds etc. These approaches are encouraged by FWC—but not mandated at this time.
Tournament release mortality (long-term, spawn issues, and return to home range). Additional research in conjunction with tournaments.
Desire for more closed-areas or seasons, but science continually shows they don’t enhance populations.
What to do regarding public-relations vs. science-based decision making?
Agency turf issues, is it a big problem? They can compete especially relative to their mission—but social considerations (political) influence priorities. The constituents that speak up the most influence issues.
How do we get communities involved with projects to enhance fisheries? Habitat work, pier/attractor development, feeders, research, and others are all possible.
Needs for volunteers, and grants and how to enhance those opportunities. Partnerships and sponsorships are critical. The more organized you are, the more people you represent and the more clear it is that you and they are informed and that you have their approval to speak for you the more effective you'll be.
Wetland conservation. This is an issue everyone can get behind

*NOTE on Aquatic Vegetation control:

General costs for chemical control are about $100-$200 per acre while mechanical control is about $1,000 per acre (minimum). Mechanical control can be as much as $5,000 to $6,000 per acre.

Biological control is going to vary quite a bit depending on what critter you are talking about. For grass carp it is about $100 per acre (assuming a stocking rate of 10 fish per acre). The cost for grass carp and other bio-controls usually applies for multiple years (4 to 10 years for grass carp - $10 per acre for 10 years of control) while the chemical and mechanical costs are a yearly figure.

PHOTOS OF THE SUMMITS ARE AVAILABLE ON-LINE

Take Me Fishing.org is a great general information site for recreational anglers and boaters.

Florida Fishing Capital of the World--Great Resources, Responsible Management