California "bassocide"

[Starchalopakis]

It's obvious that I am in a battle of wits with a completely unarmed but overly emotional group, and I can find no reason to continue to respond until some of you can grow up enough to tell the difference between a hypothetical law about a stupid fish and laws designed to take away the rights of an entire race.

You lost me at "stupid fish".

[deaknh03]

It's obvious that I am in a battle of wits with a completely unarmed but overly emotional group, and I can find no reason to continue to respond until some of you can grow up enough to tell the difference between a hypothetical law about a stupid fish and laws designed to take away the rights of an entire race.

 

I think the point was that you are making it black and white..it's a written law so obey it.Whereas the other points are that there have been countless written laws that were unfair and unjust..not saying the bass killing law is either one..just saying that not every law is fair and just and history has proven that it has taken some form of civil disobedience to change things. 

[K_Mac]

I wonder in what topics emotion is acceptable? For those who are passionate about bass fishing, any law that threatens the species anywhere is going to raise emotion. When someone suggests that all laws are equal and that any disobedience puts all in the same boat, emotion will come into play. When someone makes assertions that anyone who questions these ideas does not have the intellect required to understand the argument, it seems overly emotional to me.

[DevinFishing29]

What I would do is just not fish there anymore unless I was just going fishing to catch a few and keep them to eat. I wouldn't really do any of the options on this poll. Just my two cents.

[VolFan]

I just wish someone could point out the lines in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights that establish a right to bass fish, or catch and release or anything having to do with fishing and "rights".

[HoosierHawgs]

I just wish someone could point out the lines in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights that establish a right to bass fish, or catch and release or anything having to do with fishing and "rights".

There's also nothing in the constitution about Judicial review... But the Supreme court knocks down laws regularly....

[Lund Explorer]

I think the point was that you are making it black and white..it's a written law so obey it.Whereas the other points are that there have been countless written laws that were unfair and unjust..not saying the bass killing law is either one..just saying that not every law is fair and just and history has proven that it has taken some form of civil disobedience to change things. 

 

 

I wonder in what topics emotion is acceptable? For those who are passionate about bass fishing, any law that threatens the species anywhere is going to raise emotion. When someone suggests that all laws are equal and that any disobedience puts all in the same boat, emotion will come into play. When someone makes assertions that anyone who questions these ideas does not have the intellect required to understand the argument, it seems overly emotional to me.

 

Read the post below boys.  My only point was that just because a fishing regulation seems "stupid" doesn't mean that that law is the right thing to do.  Hopefully you'll notice that my only reference to any other law dealt with the so called sin of bucket fishing.  Its the drama queens that have decided to drag up every other subject under the sun.

 

I fully realize that emotions run wild when someone's perfect idea of how everyone else should fish is threatened.  This country has survived many other stupid laws by the simple idea of electing the right people into office who will correct them.  But don't let me stand in the way of the bloviating crowds!

 

 

Amazing!

 

24 34 members voted to break the law.

 

Now we need a poll to see if these people would agree that others had the right to their status as "bucket fishermen", or if they actually feel that they're the only ones allowed to break the law.

 

The world may never know!

[Big C]

So...I am being asked to respond to a poll about a political event -- that is about a government policy -- but not to turn the topic "into a political argument?"

 

Am I missing something here?  A response to this poll is literally a political argument. No?

 

Arguments and discussions are two different things.  And, since it's not locked yet, so far so good.  Suprisingly enough.

[VolFan]

There's also nothing in the constitution about Judicial review... But the Supreme court knocks down laws regularly....

There's plenty in various places about the three branches of government balancing each other. Try again.

[HoosierHawgs]

There's plenty in various places about the three branches of government balancing each other. Try again.

But judicial review was not one of those checks. Not established until Marbury vs Madison by Chief Justice John Marshall. Maybe you should crack a History Text book. Try again.

[K_Mac]

Lund you have chosen one of your posts to make your point. I suggest you reread all of your posts on this thread. There is plenty of bloviating being done here, most of it yours.

VolFan I think amendments 9 and 10 are what you are looking for.

[VolFan]

You're arguing a balance of power in our government vs the aforementioned "right" to bass fish and practice catch and release. Basic tenet of our government vs a silly recreational hobby that gets overwhelmingly overstated in its importance. It's a silly red herring with no bearing on the discussion at hand. The challenge of my history knowledge is just silly.

[K_Mac]

My argument is simply that government is limited in its power to regulate, and when it sticks its nose too far into the lives of the people, it violates its purpose. Yes bass fishing may be a stretch, but challenging those limits is my responsibility, and yours.

[WPCfishing]

I see no way to make comments without breaking forum rules so I'll just add this... It's been to cold and to windy this month.

[gobig]

There is a such thing as immoral laws and I feel we have a duty to disobey them. We have the ability to overturn bad law through the court system in the form of jury's. The real power lies in jury nullification. 

[HoosierHawgs]

You're arguing a balance of power in our government vs the aforementioned "right" to bass fish and practice catch and release. Basic tenet of our government vs a silly recreational hobby that gets overwhelmingly overstated in its importance. It's a silly red herring with no bearing on the discussion at hand. The challenge of my history knowledge is just silly.

You're missing the point. I was pointing out a clear fallacy in your logic.

[VolFan]

What was the fallacy?

[WPCfishing]

I think it's about time the bass fishing industry start a Lobbyist group. I'm sure the NRA would be glad to offer advice.

 

This is nuts, It's hard to believe it has come to this... 

 

To add to this, The invasive weed thing has created what I call swimming pools in my area. The chemicals they're using kill everything. 

[Dogmatic]

If it was established in my neck of the woods...Catch, live well, release into another body of water. Make sure I'm fishing barbless, and shake the "dinks" off at the boat.

[slonezp]

Is it morally right to obey unjust laws? 

Watch the movie "Gone Baby Gone" from 2007 with Casey Afleck and Morgan Freeman

[slonezp]

Vote the bastages out of office

[gulfcaptain]

What is "unjust" about it? Invasive species can and do cause havoc within an ecosystem. I agree that killing your catch will have little if any effect on the bass population but maybe, the point of the proposal would be that the invasive species are unwanted and don't belong there. Here in the Midwest, we are fighting our own invasive species that are destroying our rivers and threatening the Great Lakes, the Asian carp. It is illegal to throw back any bighead or silver carp caught. Nobody here thinks that law is unjust. Maybe because we don't fish for the carp. People from Asia who like the carp and eat them probably wouldn't want the fish wasted. In many places, there are gamefish like musky that have been released illegally and have caused problems with local ecosystems. The musky fishermen don't like it that they can't have muskies in every body of water they can fish but they don't belong everywhere either.

Maybe those that wrote the law are just from PETA and want all fishing stopped or someone is trying to restore what was once a good trout fishery. Getting rid of invasive species is a tough thing to do once the become established. It doesn't matter if the invasive is a fish that sportsman like to catch. If it doesn't belong there, some attempts should be made to correct the problem. This law probably is like taking a leak on a forest fire but what other plan that would cost next to nothing to implement is there?

Scott, I totally agree with your arguement of invasive species.  BUT, here lies the issue, the bass and stripers were stocked by the state to begin with.  Most of that list is protected under CA Fish and Game laws as they are a gamefish.  There is a big difference between a grass carp, silver carp, bighead carp, and snakehead that were NEVER stocked by a state agency into the waterways of where they now have become a problem on the system.  California has an issue of water mismanagement.  They don't want dams because it will effect the habitat, they can't store water when it does rain.  Oh and did we forget most of S. California IS A COASTAL DESERT!  Droughts are nothing new, just more covered now in the age of "climate change" and the need to bring everything back to the way it was before we ever touched it.  My point is it's hard to now rid an entire fishery of gamefish the state has regulations and laws which manage ALL of which are sportfish to now have them deemed invasive when the state is the one that created the fishery.  And for those who think you should catch, livewell release in CA, yeah there's a law against that too.  So weather you throw them back accidently or if you decide to transplant them, you're in the same boat so to speak.

[gulfcaptain]

Sorry about the double post....deleted second.

[slonezp]

I think it's about time the bass fishing industry start a Lobbyist group. I'm sure the NRA would be glad to offer advice.

 

This is nuts, It's hard to believe it has come to this... 

 

To add to this, The invasive weed thing has created what I call swimming pools in my area. The chemicals they're using kill everything. 

http://asafishing.org/

 

There are a number of local state lobbyist groups as well

[Mainebass1984]

Wow. Very entertaining. Lots of opinions being tossed around. I do my best not to break any laws, especially fishing laws. Sure I do go a little bit over the speed limit from time to time. Pretty sure everyone has at some point. Invasive species though are a very real threat to all fisheries. Across a vast area of this country largemouth and smallmouth bass are an invasive species. Killing every bass I caught would be difficult for me to do. If releasing the fish would jeopardize my ability to purchase a fishing license and fish then I would not release the fish I caught. It is sad and against what I would want to do but to keep my ability to fish then that's what I would do. I am not sure what the penalty would be for releasing those fish back into the water. I know that in Maine you risk losing your fishing license for life if you are caught breaking fish regulations in some cases, especially if it involves an invasive species. I am in New England and have no real say in what happens on the California delta. It is my understanding the law to kill all bass, bluegill, etc., is a last ditch effort to protect an endangered species, the Clear Lake Hitch. I am in favor of protecting and rehabilitating endangered species. What is the acceptable cost to do so ? If there was a law passed in my state on one of my favorite bodies of water to kill all bass I would not be in favor of it. If one of my favorite bodies of water some how had snakeheads introduced and they were reeking havoc on the fish population and ecosystem of that bodies water I would hope something would be done about it. This topic/discussion is opinion heavy and everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion/stance is that I will not knowingly break any fishing law or regulation. If you feel so strongly about the subject then start contacting the necessary individuals and agencies to make a difference. Let your opinion be heard more loudly, perhaps not on a bass fishing forum.

 

 In the past two years there were bills introduced in the state of Maine that received some attention in the bass fishing community.  Several trout enthusiasts and groups were attempting to ban the use of soft plastics.  Another bill attempted to ban the use of barbed hooks. Yet another bill was introduced attempting to ban all recreational activities within 200 feet of shore. That would mean no fishing from your dock, duck hunting from shore, etc. None of these bills passed. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife stepped in and spoke against all three of these bills because, amongst other reasons, pressure from anglers, fishing affiliated agencies and groups. Coincidently all three bills were introduced by the same individual.  My point is you can make a difference by letting your opinions and views heard by agencies and individuals who can change or prevent the law from taking effect.