if you were out fishing w/ plugs and u caught a strip bass but it was hooked to deep and gushing blood d.o.a.....now not having a tape ,but looks close would u keep it w/ the plug bury in its gills and look for pitty or pull the plug and let it go to the bottom ...i perfer filit and release..

depends on what time of day or night it was and where. Within an inch or so of legal, in the deep of night, fillet and keep it, making sure nobody was around, and only one. I had a situation last year where i had about 3 out of around 10 schoolies in about 30 minutes die on me in broad daylight. I felt terrible about it, stopped fishing and watched the others fisherman catch for another 30 minutes til they moved on.

I'd get my plug back and then feed the crabs....they gotta eat too.

I'm the kind that always gets caught if I tried to keep it.

I've had it happen twice. Once with clam's and the fish inhaled everything. I did manage to get the hook out but he was bleeding big time. It was dusk and I in no way was going to keep a short on a beach that is regulary patroled. I watched him struggle and he did die and wash back up. It sucked to watch that. The 2nd time was on a plug foul hooked and I did some major damage on the retrieve to his gills. He was just about DOA. I fed the crabs with him as well. I think you got to put them back in no matter what.

It sucks, but they gotta go back. I know where on my rod is 28" just in case i run into that kind of situation.

but i decided i wouldn't

gave the fish the benefit of the doubt
that it MIGHT recover in a few...
even though i figured it was a goner

and of course it didn't . :hs:
Soon it was out there
floating
with a gull going after it ... :rolleyes:

glad it doesn't happen that often

If I can't prove that it's legal it goes back. If it's legal I keep it. I don't fish without a tape for just that reason. It'd be a pity to throw a bleeding keeper back. It's the law to throw a bleeding short back. EPO officer told me that something would eat it, wouldn't be wasted in the larger scheme of things....

depends on what time of day or night it was and where. Within an inch or so of legal, in the deep of night, fillet and keep it, making sure nobody was around, and only one. I had a situation last year where i had about 3 out of around 10 schoolies in about 30 minutes die on me in broad daylight. I felt terrible about it, stopped fishing and watched the others fisherman catch for another 30 minutes til they moved on.

Get caught with a filleted fish before going home and you'll be fined the same as if you kept a short fish.

Bend your barbs if there's schoolies.

How close is close, Dave? 27-1/2"? I think most EPOs would give you the half inch.

I think if it was even 27" I'd leave the plug where it was, and keep it. Maybe it won't matter to a real hard-ass, but a reasonable EPO might understand when he or she saw the plug buried like that.

On the other hand, I've put back 24 or 25" fish that I knew were goners. You're not getting any leeway from an officer there :hs:

Get caught with a filleted fish before going home and you'll be fined the same as if you kept a short fish.

Bend your barbs if there's schoolies.

not if your meat is over 28" :rtfm:

i don't have this happen too often and when it does i release the bleeder and feel bad about it cause its going to be a dead fish.couple years ago our boss man john r posted up by catch dead stripers from ocean boats getting herrings and it was alot of dead stripers so i stopped feeling so bad about it.

This is defintely a problem. It's the main reason I stopped fishing for schoolies some time ago. I know a lot of people have a problem with us fishing bunker but I didn't have one sub leagal fish live lining. In fact, I can honestly say that in all my years in the surf I rarely had a schoolie on an eel. It may be where I fish, I don't know, but usually I fish big eels and you know the old saying "big bait, big fish".

not if your meat is over 28" :rtfm:

Not in Mass:

4) Bass must be kept whole, with head, tail and body intact - no mutilation permitted (other than evisceration). :rtfm:

that situation always kills me....but I always throw them back. I Use circle hooks with bait, but still manage to snag a few deep.

I kept one at 24" that was dead. Not bleeding, dead. I put it back and it floated around in the wash for a while, so I gaffed it from the rock and kept it. I refuse to live in a society that can't recognize why that's perfectly acceptable, so I tend to defer to what it morally right and makes sense over what's legally permissable.

Do what you think is best and live with what follows.

what do i do ...fish looked big enouph,it swallowed a 6 in pp up to the neck ..but w/ no tape ,and doa blowing blood ..i said fckit and left the plug buryed in it deep and layed the fish on the shore ,but keep fishing ...i got 6-8 more some bigger most smaller, but that fish on shore was like a thorn in my butox.. a long walk out to the truck in the rain .gulty or not....well ,tape says a short...........................$#&((*&^%@@$%&*)()*($$&**&!@^)(**(%$@@#$%^&..........32.in criminal it sucks to b honest....

I kept one at 24" that was dead. Not bleeding, dead. I put it back and it floated around in the wash for a while, so I gaffed it from the rock and kept it. I refuse to live in a society that can't recognize why that's perfectly acceptable, so I tend to defer to what it morally right and makes sense over what's legally permissable.

Do what you think is best and live with what follows.


Rules are Rules.

If everyone did what they thought was best society would be to chaotic to live in.

Short fish should go back. Period.

Rules are Rules.

thats what the nazi storm troopers said as they loaded the trains with jews.

rules without interpretation are for the braindead liberals.

unjust, unconstitutional or immoral rules should not be followed.

who decides? I do.

who decides? I do.

Who decides to pay the Fine...You Do

unjust, unconstitutional or immoral rules should not be followed.

who decides? I do.

A truer statement could not have been made.

Who decides to pay the Fine...You Do

I agree. If you don't follow fish and game rules, even if some are f#@%## ridiculous, you're on a very slippery slope. Keeping a dead short may make sense to one person (I can see that) but the next guy may think keeping a sickly looking one as the same thing.Etc.

I agree. If you don't follow fish and game rules, even if some are f#@%## ridiculous, you're on a very slippery slope. Keeping a dead short may make sense to one person (I can see that) but the next guy may think keeping a sickly looking one as the same thing.Etc.

Exactly what I mean.

Then the next thing you know people are intentionally gut hooking fish so they can keep them. Where does the line get drawn? How can a fish and game officer determine who is wounding fish accidentally and who just wants a quick meal? They can't, and that is exactly why the rules are in place.

The fish will be used by something else in the cosystem anyway...

Its a little extreme to compare me to a nazi, just because I'm a law abiding citizen....:hs:

I have personal problem with letting a dead fish "go". In a perfect world where you would be able to trust sportsmen to do the right thing, which in IMO is to take the dead fish home and stop fishing. However it is different in reality, largley because of the untrusting society we live in, and where everything has to be black and white, and PC, there can be no subjectivity (or thought) behind anything....so today, you need to put the undersized dead fish back as distasteful as it is, just to obey the (stupid) law.

Like I said, in my perfect world I think the warden would be able to figure out over time if someone is a real lawbreaker or doing the right thing with a dead fish. But there are few wardens and many changing laws


I also think size limits need to be revisited. I now think size limits contribute to higher mortality. Creel limits is what should be the guideline. As we saw with fluke last year, increasing the size limit so as to meet arbitary target deadlines set by our fishery experts has meant a doubling of the mortality in a year when fishing for the species was low. Now I know bass is different than fluke but if fishermen are fishing for their "limit", perhaps the limit should be 1 or 2 with the stipulation that you can not release dead/dying/bleeding fishing knowingly. I know this is impossible to police but it allows the good sportsman to do the right thing and encourages others to do the same.

just a though.........

I'll release and let the big man upstairs call the shots - ain't no fish worth $60/lb if you guessed wrong and Johnny Law is out and about...

Whoa - are my peeps being compared to dead bass? A little extreme, I might say...

Like Piemma said... I dont fish for schoolies. Big bait - Big Fish.

Big bait doesnt always = big fish an 8 inch pencil can get sucked down by a 26inch bass. Even if it doesnt get it all the way in the gullet, it just takes 1 hook to rip out a gill.

I am still having a hard time believing that Stifftip posted something that generated intelligent debate and opinion.:eek5:

I guess there is hope for the world afterall.

Will wonders never cease.

Let the crabs have their way with it.

when it was 36" eveyone had thier rod marked with tape .. then 34" ... wasn't 30" in there... now 28" ...Not sure,,, its gotta go back .. I don't consider feeding crabs a waste ... Stripers eat crabs ..

Exactly what I mean.

Then the next thing you know people are intentionally gut hooking fish so they can keep them. Where does the line get drawn? :

I can answer that. Intentionally gut hooking a fish is wrong.

Zero tolerance laws are stupid and don't work. Life is grey. You're not supposed to kill short bass. If you accidentally kill it, the damage is done. What happens after it's dead is irrelevant. I'm not a fish doctor so I can't tell how much blood loss or tissue damage will kill a fish, so if it's bleeding but not dead, I'll throw it back.

I'm talking about logic and morality, not the law. The law doesn't make sense. The same fish may or may not be kept at a certain size depending in which state's waters it's swimming.

This is the morality versus legality argument. The two have nothing to do with each other and only intersect occasionally by chance. In 1850 Virginia, slavery was legal. That doesn't make it moral.

Plus in this case the stakes are so small, doing what's right is relatively risk free. It's not like they actually enforce saltwater fishing regulations.

Any fish stupid enough to be fooled by stiff tip is should be killed before it ruins the gene pool.

Any fish stupid enough to be fooled by stiff tip is should be killed before it ruins the gene pool.

shame, shame , numbie yous got to stop being jellois of me. u no's youse just gots to learns hows 2 cast ...dats all....but i tinks u right.....

I can answer that. Intentionally gut hooking a fish is wrong.

Zero tolerance laws are stupid and don't work. Life is grey. You're not supposed to kill short bass. If you accidentally kill it, the damage is done. What happens after it's dead is irrelevant. I'm not a fish doctor so I can't tell how much blood loss or tissue damage will kill a fish, so if it's bleeding but not dead, I'll throw it back.

I'm talking about logic and morality, not the law. The law doesn't make sense. The same fish may or may not be kept at a certain size depending in which state's waters it's swimming.

This is the morality versus legality argument. The two have nothing to do with each other and only intersect occasionally by chance. In 1850 Virginia, slavery was legal. That doesn't make it moral.

Plus in this case the stakes are so small, doing what's right is relatively risk free. It's not like they actually enforce saltwater fishing regulations.

comparing the fishing laws to slavery and the holocaust is pretty ridiculous.

and while i agree if the fish is dead it really doesn't matter. the point of not being able to keep them no matter what is there is absolutely no way to prove that it died by chance, and not on purpose. any one can catch a short throw it a cooler and claim it died from a gut hook.

as far as state to state laws.. thats not a morality issue. it is more of a common sense issues though. since having different sizes and rules seems pointless. how ever those are the rules the states put in place to protect the fish stocks. and are the sizes and rules each state felt best handled that. they should how ever all get together and work out standardized laws. that would make much more sense.

not too mention the laws are there for a reason. because morality can NOT be counted on to govern a democratic society. what some find immoral, other have have absolutely no problem with. especially in a country founded upon freedom of religion. do you have any ideas how many conflicting religious morals are out there? many that are even unconstitutional. let alone illegal. on top of that everyone has their own person moral agenda. if left up to governing based upon morality, this country would be doomed. it would be a non stop religious battle over which morals are the right morals. (not that it isn't now) and i'm sorry to say, but i am not about to let some one else's moral convictions dictate the things i can do in my every day life. (granted a lot of laws already do that)

Well said.

Hypothetical arguments are a good way to make enemies.

Exactly what I mean.

Then the next thing you know people are intentionally gut hooking fish so they can keep them. Where does the line get drawn? How can a fish and game officer determine who is wounding fish accidentally and who just wants a quick meal? They can't, and that is exactly why the rules are in place.

The fish will be used by something else in the cosystem anyway...

Its a little extreme to compare me to a nazi, just because I'm a law abiding citizen....:hs:

i didn't mean to compare YOU with a nazi, just the statement to what they said. nothing personal, sorry

I don't think I compared fishing laws to slavery. Maybe stating that I did was intended to be some sort of rhetorical tool? I was merely giving an example of a situation where the law and morality butted heads. There are many others if you'd like to pick another.

It's easy to make an argument that it is not morally wrong to eat a dead fish instead of turning it into litter. Government wrote a law that doesn't make sense in order to make it easier for them to fine people, which they don't really enforce anyway. Play along if you like.

Religion and morality aren't related any more than legality and morality are.

When we come across a law that doesn't make sense, or we feel isn't right, everyone needs to make up their own mind about what to do. I don't think we should blindly do as we're told. That goes against everything the framers wanted for us.

So what would we all do if we KNEW we wouldn't get caught?! I'll be there is a pretty fair range of opinion on that. However - the right of your fist ends at my nose if we want to have any kind of orderly society. I'll take some laws, even if I'm on the wrong side of them occaisionally. Don't keep shorts. You'll feel lousy whem you look in the mirror while brushing your teeth in the morning...

When we come across a law that doesn't make sense, or we feel isn't right, everyone needs to make up their own mind about what to do. I don't think we should blindly do as we're told. That goes against everything the framers wanted for us.

isn't that what voting is for? granted the system as it is now isn't all that effective. but i thought that what was just quoted was the exact reason we have voting. most of the time we don't get a direct vote on laws. but we vote in the people who make them.

how ever what you just said in short was "if you don't agree with the laws, then it is perfectly ok to break them.". (for you at least, or whom ever chooses that path)

you think it's a dumb law. ok fair enough. (not totally in disagreement with you on that.) start trying to change them. (as people here on these boards often try to do) don't just go out and say "what a dumb law... i'm not going to abide by it." if every one did that, what the hell is the point?

example... "this guy is really getting on my nerves. the law that makes killing him illegal is stupid.. so screw it i'm just going to kill him. i don't agree with the laws, so it's ok."

i know that's far off from simply keeping a dead fish. buuuut it's the same principles. "i don't agree so i don't have to abide by." everyone has different laws they don't like. but simply breaking them isn't going to bring about any change. not too mention most are put in place for good reasons. then again there are some which are not.

I don't think I compared fishing laws to slavery. Maybe stating that I did was intended to be some sort of rhetorical tool? I was merely giving an example of a situation where the law and morality butted heads. There are many others if you'd like to pick another.

It's easy to make an argument that it is not morally wrong to eat a dead fish instead of turning it into litter. Government wrote a law that doesn't make sense in order to make it easier for them to fine people, which they don't really enforce anyway. Play along if you like.

Religion and morality aren't related any more than legality and morality are.

When we come across a law that doesn't make sense, or we feel isn't right, everyone needs to make up their own mind about what to do. I don't think we should blindly do as we're told. That goes against everything the framers wanted for us.

HOW BOUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE A LAW, YOU WORK TO CHANGE IT?

I vote, but that's as much time as I'm currently willing to devote to changing dumb laws. So far it hasn't reaworked too well.

There's one significant differnce between breaking the law to kill (assuming you mean murder, not self defence, act of war, etc) someone and my example of one time keeping a short that was already dead. Murder is morally wrong. Someone can be criminally insane and think it's right, but they're wrong. People can be wrong. The morality of something is absolute. Also, morality aside, the consequences and enforcement are different. Plus murder isn't tasty, unless you're pretty screwed up.

What about breaking the law to do something that's not morally wrong? According to dumblaws.com, it's illegal to go to bed in MA without taking a bath. Ever do that? Does it make you want to run for state senate, or just ignore the dumb law? One is a lot easier than the other and doesn't require you to sell your soul.

I vote, but that's as much time as I'm currently willing to devote to changing dumb laws. So far it hasn't reaworked too well.

There's one significant differnce between breaking the law to kill (assuming you mean murder, not self defence, act of war, etc) someone and my example of one time keeping a short that was already dead. Murder is morally wrong. Someone can be criminally insane and think it's right, but they're wrong. People can be wrong. The morality of something is absolute. Also, morality aside, the consequences and enforcement are different. Plus murder isn't tasty, unless you're pretty screwed up.

What about breaking the law to do something that's not morally wrong? According to dumblaws.com, it's illegal to go to bed in MA without taking a bath. Ever do that? Does it make you want to run for state senate, or just ignore the dumb law? One is a lot easier than the other and doesn't require you to sell your soul.

see you are back to the morality thing. morality is absolutely NOT absolute. it has always since the dawn of man differed from region to region, tribe to tribe, and religion to religion. always. ALLLLLWAAYS.

a moral is nothing but an opinion. and everyone has their
own. different cultures will always have their own traditions and morals. they are most definitely not absolute.

it's legal to "murder" people in certain parts of the world. it's perfectly acceptable. so long as there is a ""good"" reason. like... marrying outside your religion.

over all morality is nothing more than socially acceptable behavior. and generally the principles behind them lend themselves to a productive peaceful and if permitted convenient life style for those in the tribe, pack, school, country, kingdom.. what ever collective of social animals you might belong too. and generally through out nature killing one of your own is considered a no-no because it is counter productive and destabilizes the pack.

i could go on forever about that, which runs into the history of mankind. social control. failed concepts. hypothetical scenarios. etc etc but i have fishing to do.

on to dumb laws.. most of those were written over a 100 years ago and have since been canceled out by other laws. for instance have fun trying to bring a rifle to church these days.


in summary.. you are entitled to believe and do as you will. it makes you no better, nor no worse than anyone else. how ever that is breaking a law. (be it stupid or otherwise) and breaking laws isn't going to change them. how ever advocating the breaking of the law this thread was about, could very well have bad impact on the fish we love so dearly. (imagine if everyone was "accidently" killing schoolies.)

now off to fishing..