Jump to content
hamman88

There seems to be some WMD misconceptions

Recommended Posts

hamman88

I’ve read over and over again on some older threads that you cannot hunt within any of the state’s water management districts and wanted to clear up some misconceptions without replying to an old thread.  I worked at SJRWMD for 2 years before I got tired of the low pay.

 

1)      The entire state is in a WMD. From the sand dunes inwards, you are in their jurisdiction.  But this just applies to water conservation, stormwater, taxes, etc.  Nothing regarding fossil hunting, just the actions of landowners and business.

2)      They do not own navigable waterways, and in no way regulate what you can do on them, as an individual.

3)      They do own lots of land, you cannot dig on them as you cannot dig on ANY public land.

The short and sweet.  The WMD’s do not affect our fossil hunting in public waterway, regardless of what any power tripping FWC officer may believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gizmo
3 hours ago, hamman88 said:

I’ve read over and over again on some older threads that you cannot hunt within any of the state’s water management districts and wanted to clear up some misconceptions without replying to an old thread.  I worked at SJRWMD for 2 years before I got tired of the low pay.

 

1)      The entire state is in a WMD. From the sand dunes inwards, you are in their jurisdiction.  But this just applies to water conservation, stormwater, taxes, etc.  Nothing regarding fossil hunting, just the actions of landowners and business.

2)      They do not own navigable waterways, and in no way regulate what you can do on them, as an individual.

3)      They do own lots of land, you cannot dig on them as you cannot dig on ANY public land.

The short and sweet.  The WMD’s do not affect our fossil hunting in public waterway, regardless of what any power tripping FWC officer may believe.

 I believe WMD = Water Management District in this case not a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Praefectus
12 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 I believe WMD = Water Management District in this case not a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

:default_rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamman88
35 minutes ago, Praefectus said:

:default_rofl:

Our license plates started with WMD, which I like to think startled a few people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpc
2 hours ago, hamman88 said:

Our license plates started with WMD, which I like to think startled a few people.

I was wondering what WMD meant as well, but suspected he was not talking about the usual WMD.

 

We have 666 on our license plate.  : )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkinhead

Image result for weapon of mass destruction

WMDs have always thrown me for a loop, thanks for clarifying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Kmiecik

ANY is not Albany, New York. It's just the word "any" in caps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scylla

I was afraid to ask what a FWC officer does:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sacha
2 minutes ago, Scylla said:

I was afraid to ask what a FWC officer does:unsure:

 

These guys are fish and wildlife officers, but they are officers of the law and failure to follow their instructions, I would assume, would result in the same penalties as a sheriff deputy. The instructions do not necessarily have to be a correct interpretation of  state statutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone Daddy

Thanks to the OP for clarifying this issue. It's good to hear it from someone with first-hand knowledge.

 

Sascha does have a point though. Regardless of whether you are on the right side of the law, the badge always has the last word for that day. You might be able to prove your point later in court, but I wouldn't argue the letter of the law with an officer while standing at the boat ramp or on the riverbank. If they are already busting your chops for engaging in a legal activity, they might not be in the mood to hear how they are wrong about  it. I would just reluctantly agree, pack up, and find a different spot to hunt that isn't being patrolled by overzealous badges.

 

Thankfully, in several years of hunting on multiple rivers, I have never been approached a single time. (*knock on wood*)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sacha
7 minutes ago, Bone Daddy said:

 

 

Thankfully, in several years of hunting on multiple rivers, I have never been approached a single time. (*knock on wood*)

 

 

My experience is that the Suwannee River Management District is the most determined district in the effort to restrict fossil hunting. I've been requested to leave from the Santa Fe and ticketed with a warning (damaging state lands with a motor vehicle....while using a shovel and traveling in a kayak) and questioned at the ramp to the Waccasassa by an officer that recorded my permit number and issued a warning about artifacts. I have never seen an officer on or near the Peace in 8 years of going there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone Daddy
4 hours ago, Sacha said:

 

My experience is that the Suwannee River Management District is the most determined district in the effort to restrict fossil hunting. I've been requested to leave from the Santa Fe and ticketed with a warning (damaging state lands with a motor vehicle....while using a shovel and traveling in a kayak) and questioned at the ramp to the Waccasassa by an officer that recorded my permit number and issued a warning about artifacts. I have never seen an officer on or near the Peace in 8 years of going there.  

 

Those clear, spring-fed rivers are a mine field for enforcement. I have largely avoided them for mostly that reason alone. I am not familiar with the Waccasassa, but I have heard that the Sante Fe is problematic in that regard. Unforunately, artifact poachers have made it hard on everyone - even fossil hunters who have little or no interest in artifacts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hamman88
On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 2:29 PM, Bone Daddy said:

 

Those clear, spring-fed rivers are a mine field for enforcement. I have largely avoided them for mostly that reason alone. I am not familiar with the Waccasassa, but I have heard that the Sante Fe is problematic in that regard. Unforunately, artifact poachers have made it hard on everyone - even fossil hunters who have little or no interest in artifacts.

 

Probably due to them being popular party spots with lots of drunk boating.  More FWC equals more enforcement, whether it be warranted or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×