what would u do

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

who decides? I do.

Who decides to pay the Fine...You Do

[JoeBass]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[Vogt]

Originally Posted by JoeBass

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....

[Mr. Sandman]

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.........

[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)

[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