Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge - Hookup Baits

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. NiceGuy (Post 293387)

Ok, I'm still thinking about your choice of words and what it might have to do with anything we are talking about in this forum of public opinion.

Since you requested a discussion, I would like to contribute some further thoughts.

Given:

We have laws defined and imposed on us by people who work for the government in government provided jobs with government provided infrastructure and budgets (buildings, offices, fresh new trucks and boats with lots of gadgets, endless numbers of computers and expensive new equipment, etc., etc., etc., that is all very eco-unfriendly.)

Given:

We have a so-called "justice" system of prosecutors, defenders and judges that is so damned overloaded with frivolous paper-shuffling that it has almost come to a stand-still, and it has been so bent out of shape by laws and prospecting lawyers that the "justice" of it's original purpose has to a large extent been lost.

Given:

What is or is not "poaching" is defined by law, mostly by ever-growing bureaucracies that keep expanding to justify their purpose and keep hiring more and more people into government jobs that cost far more than they produce, and that consume vast amounts of precious resources very inefficiently in the process. Both natural resources consumed and polluted or destroyed by their infrastructure, and societal resources in terms of over-taxation and over-regulation of the private sector that supports their very expensive parasitic existence.

Given:

As human beings, if humanity is to survive, we have a higher level of moral laws to consider seriously and wisely. These are laws of nature, or laws under God, or laws of what's right and wrong in living together as a society and a culture in ways that might help us secure a better future for ourselves and for humanity that follows after we are gone. As human beings we have the ability to ponder and perhaps understand the importance of protecting and managing the environment in which we live. This includes our environment in nature, in application of the knowledge and experience we accumulate as individuals, in the institutions of civil society that helps bind and lubricate us together as a nation of citizens and as a culture, and our environment of crass politics of ego, greed and power that bends everything the hell out of shape.

Therefore:

To this end, we must do our best to recognize and make personal decisions and personal choices to the best of our ability that will preserve, replace and build further the precious resources that sustain us, and that will improve our chances of managing and surviving into the future as nations, as cultures and as humans beings.

Whether what we have done is defined as dastardly "poaching" (spitooey!) or legal sport fishing because of some piece of paper we paid for, or because of what side of some arbitrary line we might be on, why are we destroying the lives of so many magnificent living creatures at all? Why do we hunt and fish with such lust and passion to turn the natural wildlife around us into tasty fish tacos?

When we catch a 21" fish that must be 22" according to law, and we throw it back on the water to die or to be scooped up by a bird, which technical laws of some government bureaucracy have we obeyed and which moral laws of nature have we broken, ... or not? Where is our proper position in the food chain and under the laws of Natural Selection and Darwinism. After all, we are born as omnivores, right? So is it our natural purpose to kill and be killed? Perhaps this is where the word "hypocrisy" might come in. This is something we have to define for ourselves.

After someone has been arrested, tried and punished under government regulations and laws, why is it then proper, or moral or just to rehash this subject again in the court of public opinion by dredging up an old character assassination propaganda article by the National Park Service because you could link it to the name of an individual who is local and among us as a fellow fishing enthusiast, and then attack him again by calling out the name of his business and livelihood in the title of this thread? The work he does in his business not only helps support him and his family, but by surviving in the private sector, he no doubt pays huge amounts of taxes (direct, indirect and hidden), that help support the bloated armies of government workers who do little or nothing to support themselves at very great expense to taxpayers and a free society in general.

Obviously you have stirred up some passions here and you have several people who want to support your call for a boycott to punish this person further. Again, we have to ponder and decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, legally and morally, and how we want to define our own lives as good citizens and thoughtful human beings who are trying to do the right things in life. Thinking about the meaning of hypocrisy and how it might apply to the conversation of this thread is good food for thought. No doubt about that.

Technically, legally, as far as attacking a person's reputation and trying to destroy the income of his business, and knowing the way lawyers like to stir things up with the kinds of leverage they can apply, I would guess you are already in the legal gray zone here. If I was the target of your personal attack myself, I might want to rightfully lash back, legally and morally, to protect myself, my family, my business and my means of support. Just trying to see the bigger picture here and avoid making problems worse.

This shit flies all directions and can splatter everyone. Opinions vary widely.

Lets go destroy more old, huge, beautiful, delicious, innocent fish legally.
Fish tacos, yay! :cheers1:

[/sarcasm]

[/morning coffee]

Seriously, have a nice day :)

Life is sweet. Live and let live.

This was surprisingly candid and I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I am with on the most of the "givens" of your post. I too agree with the gray area of law and interpretation of law stemming from bureaucracy.

To answer your question on why bring it up is because that's the best way to develop ideas for me. To discuss them and be open to outside opinion. Reading the article, a judgement is made by pooling other peoples experiences, knowledge and opinions I am better able to make a better judgement.

That being said a little ways into the "Therefore" I still understand where you're coming from but would like to add.

There's a difference in grey area offences that tread the line and clear disregard for the line. Here comes another OPINION, its not necessarily about a single offence for me, according to the article the man killed multiple bucks in a protected area (repeated) and claimed records. Well to me that's just plain old cheating and unfair to the other hunters who abide by the law and do not have the same fair chance at the record. I compare this to fishing la jolla during a bay only tournament then coming back to the bay and claiming you caught your 37 lb yellowtail in the bay. But I for one, believe in second chances as I've made mistakes and I do not want to be judged for them but by how I have adjusted my course as a result.

I've actually changed my opinion throughout this thread to a more neutral one, nor boycott nor buy. But there was no way for me to lead to change of opinion without additional information. This is why I appreciate an open discussion and the other guys who actually know what's happened in the last 8 years. Although old news to some, this is new to me as I've never seen or heard it before.

Every consumer has a right to make their own informed decisions and choose what business to support with their hard earned money.

P.S. There is never any call to boycott the product (not my intention), merely stated that I didn't think I would purchase(personal choice) it given the limited information available to me.

Also, I don't consider posting an article and an opinion a personal attack. An attack would be pushing one side of a narrative and I feel I have opened this up for discussion from both sides as well as a ideological debate.

Anyways - hope this comes off right as it often doesn't through written word.

Fish on and Tight Lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie951 (Post 293345)

I politely disagree. Anyone whom poaches knowingly and is prosecuted should be banned from ever obtaining a recreational license of any type in their lifetime.. If this were the case, and we all knew, do you think people would still Poach? Not nearly as many!!

I know all to well about paying your debt to society. He's making good. :luxhello: