The good news is, that according to a DNR officer, the men who dumped the trees in the canals, will come today - Saturday, to remove them.
The bad news is, according to DNR regulations/laws, the practice is lawful, and can continue. So the next fisherman, who decides to come in, and make fish beds, will be a problem, a potential risk to boats, and the people who ride in them. The current DNR regulations do not appear to consider, the size of the body of water, or in the case of the canals, who paid to open the water, the increase rate of silting, or the exceleration of the need to pay again, for dredging, that resulted from the public abuse of our canals. In this case, if you consider intention, these guys first tried to dump a truck load of trees, and when that didn't work, they brought a boat load in. What about obstruction of navigation in our canals, for the people who live here, and paid for the dredging? They only had to pay for a fishing license, and a boat registration. SC is full of large bodies of water, where they can make fish beds. These two had to come in through the Black River to bring the trees in! Last summer, we had fisherman in boats, 4-5 days a week. There is no problem with their right to fish. They shouldn't be able to obstruct navigation, and increase the rate of silting.
In our case, the tree was placed in the middle of the canal. The deepest cut. We have about 8 feet of water in the middle at high tide. I don't know how long the tether tie on the tree is, but you can't see it at high tide. At mid tide it shows, at lower tides, it is all out there.
HIGH TIDE
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT IS THERE, YOU COULD GET CAUGHT IN THE TETHER LINE, OR THE TREE TRUNK
MID TIDE
LOWER TIDE
I've told you before, that I don't care if we ever dredge again. I am insulted by the state of South Carolina, claiming the water beds, letting every person here pay, and allowing this travesty. I have some questions for my state officials. I'll work until I get some answers, and hopefully change.
TO THE STATE:
If you can't use current regs, why isn't the size of the water way, and who has paid to keep our state waters open, be considered to make changes to the law? I understand the benefit to the fisherman, but this isn't a lake, river, or large tributary. When I had to pay all that I did, why does someone who paid for nothing but, a fishing license, and boat registration, get to treat the waters I directly paid to open, like this?
You, as my governor, legislators, and enforcement authorities, wanted these waters, wouldn't dredge the canals, and we dredged them allowing them to be navigable. If we let individuals like these two increase the silting, make them unnavigable, will you dredge them, or give them back to the association, whose developer, dug them?
