what would u do

[wheresmy50]

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.

[Vogt]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

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.

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by Vogt

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.

[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.

[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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by maddmatt

unjust, unconstitutional or immoral rules should not be followed.

who decides? I do.

A truer statement could not have been made.

[Mad Hatter]

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