Purchase Power

[silverking]

In November 1994, 72 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment banning the use of indiscriminate gill and entangling nets from state waters. This vital conservation initiative resulted in a resurgence of mullet and other critical bait stocks, eliminated the unintended by-catch of redfish, snook, seatrout, pompano, Spanish mackerel and other game fish and stopped the entanglement of sea turtles and dolphins that often became trapped in the nets. Commercial harvesters are still able to make a living using cast nets, smaller seine nets, crab traps, oyster tongs and aquaculture.

And yet, 25 years later, some are still filing frivolous lawsuits trying to circumvent the will of the people and reverse the significant progress made. The latest was filed in late February in the Second Judicial Court in Leon County. Ronald Fred Crum, owner of Crum’s Mini Mall in Panacea, is the plaintiff on record, even though a majority of his business caters to recreational anglers buying bait, tackle, ice and gas.

The amendment has been upheld in several cases throughout the court system with decisive rulings that the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission does have authority to interpret and implement rules supporting the amendment’s scope. Despite these precedents, however, new lawsuits simply waste the limited resources of the commission as it is forced to defend the affirmed legal standing yet again.

Fortunately there is a simple and effective solution: Spend your hard-earned dollars at tackle shops, marinas and gas stations that are not actively trying to undermine the will of the voters and roll back historic improvements in marine conservation. There are dozens of businesses in the area that do sincerely appreciate the tremendous economic benefits of sport-fishing and care about the marine environment.

I choose to send a loud message with my wallet. I won’t patronize those businesses that are intent on harming a publicly-owned resource. And I urge fellow anglers and those concerned about the marine environment to do the same. By avoiding the cash register, maybe reality will set in and these frivolous lawsuits will finally cease.

[John21:6]

I've always enjoyed shopping at Crum's. Crums has always had great prices on marine gas and bait. I'd hate to stop shopping there without more information about the lawsuit.

What does Crum's lawsuit ask the court to do? How is the the relief sought in the lawsuit inconsistent with the net ban constitutional amendment?

[silverking]

The plaintiff and others, like Keith Ward, owner of Lighthouse Seafood in St. Marks and president of the Wakulla Fishermen's Association, have been trying to overturn the amendment since its adoption in 1995, without success. The latest effort is another attempt to challenge the FWC's rule-making authority and ability to set mesh sizes. The courts have ruled that larger sized mesh is a gill net regardless and therefore illegal.

So shopping at those businesses directly helps to subsidize efforts to roll back historic conservation progress and negatively impact the resources. To me, that's unacceptable even it if means paying a little more somewhere else.

[Salty Gator]

Agree 100%

[Srbenda]

For those interested, the full legal complaint can be read here.


https://fishingforfreedominc.com/wp-con ... da-FWC.pdf

[woopty]

I've always been torn on this issue...

No doubt the measure helped restore recreational fish stocks in our area...it's been a blessing to me personally...

I was lucky to get in on a few running seasons back then. I don't ever remember netting a trout or red when they were runing thick, but that was just us.
I saw abuses down there too...but when put in context of the time...rampant smuggling/never did see the man out there...a little fishing abuse or something like that was trivial.

But I sure do miss that way of life and culture (not all of it) down there that dissappeared with the passing of the amendment.
There are still folks fighting for that...so it's hard for me to be mad at them...

I do think the issue is settled.

I've been a Crum's customer for years, and I really can't stop, but I will start passing it around to other local places also because I hear ya silverking.

It's what I can do.

woop

[silverking]

For historical context, the former Game and Fish Commission was a constitutional agency tasked with freshwater fisheries management and upland management.

The former Marine Fisheries Commission was a statutory agency.

Both these agencies were abolished and replaced by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, which was created by another constitutional amendment with a 72 percent approval rating in November 1998. The FWC, implemented in July 1999, now manages all the state's fish and wildlife resources. Money comes from license fees, federal money and the Florida Legislature. Commissioners are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate.

[Sun Daze]

In November 1994, 72 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment banning the use of indiscriminate gill and entangling nets from state waters. This vital conservation initiative resulted in a resurgence of mullet and other critical bait stocks, eliminated the unintended by-catch of redfish, snook, seatrout, pompano, Spanish mackerel and other game fish and stopped the entanglement of sea turtles and dolphins that often became trapped in the nets. Commercial harvesters are still able to make a living using cast nets, smaller seine nets, crab traps, oyster tongs and aquaculture.

And yet, 25 years later, some are still filing frivolous lawsuits trying to circumvent the will of the people and reverse the significant progress made. The latest was filed in late February in the Second Judicial Court in Leon County. Ronald Fred Crum, owner of Crum’s Mini Mall in Panacea, is the plaintiff on record, even though a majority of his business caters to recreational anglers buying bait, tackle, ice and gas.

The amendment has been upheld in several cases throughout the court system with decisive rulings that the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission does have authority to interpret and implement rules supporting the amendment’s scope. Despite these precedents, however, new lawsuits simply waste the limited resources of the commission as it is forced to defend the affirmed legal standing yet again.

Fortunately there is a simple and effective solution: Spend your hard-earned dollars at tackle shops, marinas and gas stations that are not actively trying to undermine the will of the voters and roll back historic improvements in marine conservation. There are dozens of businesses in the area that do sincerely appreciate the tremendous economic benefits of sport-fishing and care about the marine environment.

I choose to send a loud message with my wallet. I won’t patronize those businesses that are intent on harming a publicly-owned resource. And I urge fellow anglers and those concerned about the marine environment to do the same. By avoiding the cash register, maybe reality will set in and these frivolous lawsuits will finally cease.

Dave, I respect your opinion and agree the net ban has helped fishing throughout the state. That said, I've known Ronald Fred, his brother Warren, their brother in law Frasier Martin, and several other of his family members for over 20 years. You may disagree with his stance on this issue, but he and the gentlemen I mentioned are some of the finest and most genuinely great men I've ever associated with. His efforts to overturn the net ban, in my opinion will not be successful, just as the numerous previous attempts. I don't fish the Panacea area a lot, maybe 3-4 times a year, as I know other area waters better, but when I do, I patronize his establishment, because he patronizes mine and I simply like the old boy, plus you simply have to respect his tenacity! Again, I respect your opinion, especially as a VERY knowledgeable and skilled angler, but I disagree with publicly attacking a mans business, which employs numerous local residents, and in my humble opinion, is bad form and unbecoming of a man with such standing in the fishing community as yourself!

[Salty Gator]

All of what you said may be true, but we all choose where we spend our money. I don’t want money made off of me to go to overturn the net ban. I don’t want money made off of me to pay lawyers to fight this...I will pay 40 cents more a gallon for gas at Rocky’s. They also employ locals. SK didn’t seem rude or attack his business ( he runs a fine business,,, I miss shopping there), imho he was just passing along info that the lawsuit was reopened for those that want to know. CCA members already know this as we were sent an email last week naming Mr crum by name.

[Blue spinner]

Thanks SK for the information
i will shop other places

[Sun Daze]

All of what you said may be true, but we all choose where we spend our money. I don’t want money made off of me to go to overturn the net ban. I don’t want money made off of me to pay lawyers to fight this...I will pay 40 cents more a gallon for gas at Rocky’s. They also employ locals. SK didn’t seem rude or attack his business ( he runs a fine business,,, I miss shopping there), imho he was just passing along info that the lawsuit was reopened for those that want to know. CCA members already know this as we were sent an email last week naming Mr crum by name.

He advocated a boycott of Crum's.... That in and of itself, to me, is an attack. I probably could have used a more appropriate or less abrasive word. It's impossible to convey inflection and tone through text and if someone interprets something one way, others another, it leads to heated discussions, which aren't productive. I really hope my comments didn't come across as rude, as I really tried to not be rude, but sometime, I just come across that way... .Or at least that's what the wife says. My point about Dave is that he has aleays struck me as someone who would be above advocatin such actions, but when we are passionate about something like this, which Dave clearly is, we can all do or say things that may be a bit out of the ordinary. I will assure you guys, I've lost absolutely zero respect for Dave, and greatly appreciate his contributions to the local fishing community.

I wasn't advocating for anyone to violate their conscience and shop where they are uncomfortable. They've challenged this same thing before, with slight nuanced changes, but they've basically challenged the FWC's authority to determine mesh size before and have lost. I'm confident they will lose again.

I too am a CCA member and haven't seen an email, probably in my spam folder where their emails end up sometimes. Naming Ronald Fred by name (as you assert CCA did) is one thing, naming his business and advocating a boycott, which is how he and others earn a living, is another. Again ,I have a ton of respect for Dave and don't want that getting misconstrued. I simply see it as shortsighted to boycott a business that employs local residents, as their livleyhood and the way they feed their family could be affected. They aren't guilty of Ronald Fred's actions and I don't feel they should suffer any consequences due to the Ronald Fred's activities. Also, Rocky's does lots of business and I patronize the US 98 Perry store when going to Keaton as I go right by it, so their employees are safe I'm sure. I will aslo hit the Wakulla Rocky's when convenient! They are great folks too!!

[Salty Gator]

You were careful and respectful with your words. I understand your feelings on the matter, and don’t think you were rude at all. You are certainly right about nonproductive heated conversation, and both sides feel strongly. Those in the middle feel bad for both sides. Capt Dave worked hard on this back on the early 90s to help see this through, so I’m sure he doesn’t want to see his work undone....Shoot me a pm if you’d like and I’ll forward the email. And BTW the email didn’t say anything about Crums mini mall or his business or boycotting in any way.
Edit: the email did not mention the plaintiff by name. That came from srbendas link...I apologize

[procraftwes]

Yawn.

There's two sides to every story and every political stance has a flip side.. At most you could be 50% right.

Crum's is good people so i'll continue to shop there.

[Redfin]

SK didn’t seem rude or attack his business ( he runs a fine business,,, I miss shopping there), imho he was just passing along info that the lawsuit was reopened for those that want to know.

WOW - once again, you jump on SK's bandwagon every chance you get... to defend him. He clearly stated he was boycotting a business - fine, his decision. The post name in itself says it all - "Purchase Power". And his quote "Fortunately there is a simple and effective solution: Spend your hard-earned dollars at tackle shops, marinas and gas stations that are not actively trying to undermine the will of the voters and roll back historic improvements in marine conservation."

God forbid others have opinions on the matter that are contrary to his beliefs. You said "SK didn’t seem rude or attack his business ".. He literally attacked businesses: "I choose to send a loud message with my wallet. I won’t patronize those businesses that are intent on harming a publicly-owned resource." Which is fine, its his $$ but come on.. he DID attack his business.

[Price3275]

As a lost out of town fisherman several years ago, I had a fairly long conversation with Mr. Crum in his store (didn't know who he was at the time) before daylight one morning while heading to the water. He was, and still is, very friendly to me, and I believe that one conversation saved my fishing trip that year. I see both sides of the issue as many do, but I would not fault someone for fighting for what they believe in. Even if their views of the matter and mine were totally opposite. That is what makes this country the greatest one on Earth! (And I do not blame the other side for fighting for the net ban BTW.)