what would u do

[wheresmy50]

Originally Posted by Vogt

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.

[numbskull]

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

[stiff tip]

Originally Posted by numbskull

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.....

[GonnaCatchABig1]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

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)

[JoeBass]

Well said.

[Joe]

Hypothetical arguments are a good way to make enemies.

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by Vogt

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....

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

[wheresmy50]

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.

[Mad Hatter]

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...

[GonnaCatchABig1]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

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.

[Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

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?

[wheresmy50]

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.

[GonnaCatchABig1]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

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..