Page 1 of 2
Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 12:38 pm
by Dubble Trubble
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/ ... areas.aspx
Notice the graphic included (Click on it at upper right)
Folks, I do not how many of you know where Shell Island and St Andrews sound is, but this is a frightening forewarning of a complete takeover of those areas by the military in the name of "security".
I would especially be interested to hear Chalk's perspective on this.
The areas are going to be "enhanced security zones", and the plan is only during heightened times of danger at the current time, but we all know how when you give the government an inch, they take 20 miles......of our beautiful, pristine coastline....
I have spent many, many wonderful days around the shell island area boating, and on the beaches. Looks like future generations will not have that pleasure.
I would also note that the state park system has been wanting to get rid of boaters at shell island for some time now. I am sure the reasons are financial gain for someone and will be seen in the future who it is. Looks like they found a way to do it now...
For those of you that do not believe they do things like this, just look at what happened to a gorgeous stretch of Highway 98 just west of Port St. Joe!
Dubble

Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 12:47 pm
by dombern34
was just there two weekends ago, can't believe they'll doing that.
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 2:06 pm
by fireant21
This is a training base anymore. Why is this needed. I guess the plastic navy has threatened invasion of Pelican Point GC.
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 2nd, 2013, 8:12 am
by bman
The areas are going to be "enhanced security zones", and the plan is only during heightened times of danger at the current time, but we all know how when you give the government an inch, they take 20 miles......of our beautiful, pristine coastline....
Looking at the graphic its only when they have a security need... which sounds reasonable but its a ton of real estate!
CIS, Shell Point AND part of Little St George!
I'm curious about the places they are shutting down now-
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/4 ... 0-JMG.pdf
How much fishing opportunists are they taking away there?
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 2nd, 2013, 11:08 am
by Dubble Trubble
bman wrote:The areas are going to be "enhanced security zones", and the plan is only during heightened times of danger at the current time, but we all know how when you give the government an inch, they take 20 miles......of our beautiful, pristine coastline....
Looking at the graphic its only when they have a security need... which sounds reasonable but its a ton of real estate!
CIS, Shell Point
( < Island?) AND part of Little St George!
I'm curious about the places they are shutting down now-
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/4 ... 10-JMG.pdf
How much fishing opportunists are they taking away there?
That is why I want Chalk to pipe in. He fishes that area a lot....
Also, I could see a reason for the land on the Tyndal side across the water from shell island to be restricted in a special circumstance, but why shell island itself? There is no reason for that!
Dubble

Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 1:47 pm
by Action Craft Gator
I fish these areas quite a bit. The real impact for recreational folks is going to be during times when base security is elevated. That will effectually put a 500 ft boundary waterward from the hill around nearly the entire base from well up in East Bay, through St. Andrews Bay and on around through CIS. That represents a lot of prime fishing opportunity that would potentially be restricted during heightened base security.
The permanent restricted zone closures aren't going to be that big a deal in the Bay County area. And if you've spent much time in these particular areas you'd understand the reasoning. I've had my skiff all the way up Little Cedar to the flight line. It was without a doubt the best seat for the last air show, but I was really surprised we weren't run off.
Some folks fish the fuel depot area (Fred Bayou). But again - you're basically inside a pretty sensitive area on the base without the clearance or credentials you'd have to use to get there by land.
It's frustrating to lose any recreational access but it's understandable that access around some of these areas would be tightened up. It's getting harder for these installations to balance public access with risk mitigation in this day and age.
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 2:41 pm
by captkeyser
Seems pretty reasonable to me. I prefer not to be around when military testing is underway.
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 3:24 pm
by Jumptrout51
I would rather they used heightened security on the Texas to California border.
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 3:25 pm
by bman
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 3:33 pm
by Action Craft Gator
Jumptrout51 wrote:I would rather they used heightened security on the Texas to California border.
You got that right!
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 3:58 pm
by charlie tuna
I know two guys who were grouper fishing, knowing these guys, probably inside the bounderies a few years back. All of a sudden there came this explosion, close enough, and powerful enough to blow their hats off!!! Last time they fished "even close" to the bounderies!!!

Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 5:41 pm
by Jumptrout51
charlie tuna wrote:I know two guys who were grouper fishing, knowing these guys, probably inside the bounderies a few years back. All of a sudden there came this explosion, close enough, and powerful enough to blow their hats off!!! Last time they fished "even close" to the bounderies!!!

Did you leave after the explosion?
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 6:37 pm
by Dubble Trubble
Today at 5pm, reporter Michael J. Brown of WMBB-TV reported that due to the furor on Social Media, Tyndall is: 1) withdrawing their proposal to restrict waters in St. Andrew Bay, 2) removing the "permanent" designation of 4 areas, and 3) redefining their definition of temporary restrictions to be more definite. We applaud all of our Facebook friends who helped get their voices heard. Now, on to Round 2. New regulations will be submitted, which is a disappointment. Please stay tuned. We must be a part of this process and our first question should be why more regulations to begin with?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends- ... ion=stream
http://www.wmbb.com/story/22490149/tynd ... stallation
Dubble

Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 7:42 pm
by Chalk
Well if you look at any govt map of the said areas they already say restricted. You can't fish Crooked Island Sound when they are launching drones....there are areas outshone of PC that are off limits at times unless you want to become a target.
That said I saw the Facebook talk...other than that is all I have seen....saw some web page showing the same restricted areas that have been on maps for years. So, if there is an official site with writing stating such it is same stuff as usual. You can get asked to leave any of those areas now. They broadcast on channel 16 @ 1600 CST stating if drone launch is scheduled for CIS. If it is you will be told not asked to leave if you decide to go anyway....they don't launch on the weekend much.
Well I finally saw some writing....but I think it is just a renewal of a document that already exists....the areas are already in a restricted area in a time of need. No different Than interstates.....in a time of war public use is removed and the roads are for govt use only.
Re: Losing more recreation to the government
Posted: June 3rd, 2013, 9:41 pm
by captkeyser
Thanks for the update. Why no more posts?

I bet I know why.
