Stoppd by the DFG

[Saba Slayer]

"Can't we just get along?"
Bob did what he thought was right. We all make our decisions on where we draw the line...
"Aaron said..."If I know someone is in the act of taking short fish (crustaceans), too many, fish out of season, or protected species, I'll call the DFG, because I believe in those laws, just as I would call the HP (when the opportunity presented itself) if a parent is driving their child around who should be in a car seat, and isn't.
"BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THOSE LAWS" that's the basis of Aaron's believed right to call the DFG...well apparently we "draw the line" on whether a law is enforceable or not based on our own set of moral rights.
Do you call the HP if you see a drunk driver, or a dangerous speeder cutting in and out of traffic endangering others? Or only...."just as I would call the HP (when the opportunity presented itself) if a parent is driving their child around who should be in a car seat, and isn't."
Who's Right? Who's Wrong? The age old question?
Let's Go Fishin'...
The Hooping should be good once this rain stops...go get some Bugs and Crabs ands enjoy the beautiful Southern California areas that are still open to us!!!!!!!!!! ......and TURN IN YOUR REPORT CARDS!!!!!!!!!!
Jim / Saba Slayer

[jorluivil]

Originally Posted by Saba Slayer

"Can't we just get along?"
Bob did what he thought was right. We all make our decisions on where we draw the line...
"Aaron said..."If I know someone is in the act of taking short fish (crustaceans), too many, fish out of season, or protected species, I'll call the DFG, because I believe in those laws, just as I would call the HP (when the opportunity presented itself) if a parent is driving their child around who should be in a car seat, and isn't.
"BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THOSE LAWS" that's the basis of Aaron's believed right to call the DFG...well apparently we "draw the line" on whether a law is enforceable or not based on our own set of moral rights.
Do you call the HP if you see a drunk driver, or a dangerous speeder cutting in and out of traffic endangering others? Or only...."just as I would call the HP (when the opportunity presented itself) if a parent is driving their child around who should be in a car seat, and isn't."
Who's Right? Who's Wrong? The age old question?
Let's Go Fishin'...
The Hooping should be good once this rain stops...go get some Bugs and Crabs ands enjoy the beautiful Southern California areas that are still open to us!!!!!!!!!! ......and TURN IN YOUR REPORT CARDS!!!!!!!!!!
Jim / Saba Slayer

[yaky yak]

Mr. Dsafety,
Your views and action are different then mine, and I let emotion over ride my common sense. If I saw someone blatantly taking a BSB, or a grossly over limit of game I may take some kind of action. I don't agree with what you did, but I shouldn't of call you a derogatory name.
It takes a lot of guts to do what you thinks right in this world. Especially when it's not excepted well.
Your views aren't mine and visa versa. I'm not apologizing, but I do admit I should keep my opinions to my self.

[yaky yak]

Mr. Dsafety,
Your views and action are different then mine, and I let emotion over ride my common sense. If I saw someone blatantly taking a BSB, or a grossly over limit of game I may take some kind of action. I don't agree with what you did, but I shouldn't of call you a derogatory name.
It takes a lot of guts to do what you thinks right in this world. Especially when it's not excepted well.
Your views aren't mine and visa versa. I'm not apologizing, but I do admit I should keep my opinions to my self.

[Aaron&Julie]

Originally Posted by Saba Slayer

just as I would call the HP (when the opportunity presented itself) if a parent is driving their child around who should be in a car seat, and isn't.
"BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THOSE LAWS" that's the basis of Aaron's believed right to call the DFG...well apparently we "draw the line" on whether a law is enforceable or not based on our own set of moral rights.
Do you call the HP if you see a drunk driver, or a dangerous speeder cutting in and out of traffic endangering others? Or only...."just as I would call the HP (when the opportunity presented itself) if a parent is driving their child around who should be in a car seat, and isn't."
Jim / Saba Slayer

Jim, I don't know if we've met, but yeah, I would call the HP about a drunk driver or dangerous speeder, but like I said, "When the opportunity presented itself". I'm not going to risk a ticket, by talking on the cell phone while driving. And I may make the judgement call, that there's no way the HP is going to catch the guy/gal, when I call, therefore I don't call.
I like your views, but if you know Bob, whom I've nothing against, is he going to call the DFG if your fish takes you into the MLPA area?
If you know the fish are biting along the border of an MLPA area, and you hook up, is he going to call the DFG, because he had his GPS on, and you didn't and you were 50 feet beyond the border?
This topic escalated because those jackasses off of Laguna, had no license, lobster card and took dozens of under sized bugs in an MLPA area.
Most of us hate the MLPA, but as for those jackasses off of Laguna, we'd all hate them even before the MLPA.
I hate the lobster pots off of La Jolla, because my fish goes around their lines. But, I don't hate the lobster fishermen who are trying to make a living and got screwed by the MLPA, and I just won't be the one to point out their pots are over the line, to some degree. And even if you disagree with me, I won't be calling the DFG if you are hooked up or fishing in an MLPA area. Wrong is wrong.

[robmandel]

I've been following this for a bit, and hesitated to chime in, but here's the thing. there's two kinds of crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Malum in se - Evil in itself. Murder, rape, assault, etc., need no proving as to the wrongness. they are evil because they are evil, and to others especially.

the other is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

malum prohibitum - evil because it's prohibited by law. everything from building code violations to prostituion are evil only because it's said so by law.

now, where do i draw the line? were the "violators" malum in se or malum prohibitum? obviously the latter. thus, they committed no wrong, but that proscribed by law.

I'm going to back further than Jefferson, to one of his main inspirations, John Locke:

for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.
...
May the commands then of a prince be opposed?
...
To this I answer, that force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force;

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm):

Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
...
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Ok, what's that all mean. Well, laws such as the MLPA are malum prohibitum. There is nothing evil as for fishing, so much the silliness and sheer stupidity of this act that fishing 10 feet from the boundary is perfectly legal, 1 foot inside illegal. A simple legal designation, an invisible boundary, which is most difficult to ascertain and indeterminant as well (being that modern commercial GPS units will provide within 15-20 feet accuracy) is all that separates legal from otherwise.

It is in the words of John Locke (who is the philosophical forebear of the Dec. of Ind.) an act of tyranny, and thus must be opposed, with force if necessary.

As for the law itself, it runs counter to the greater laws, both constitutional and common. There is no malum in se, no harm to others, no crime being committed, yet rights clearly abridged. The law is clearly null and void. Now, the state has the guns and the wherewithal to make our lives hell, and no, I can't ask anyone here to risk theirs and their family's health and well being, despite being morally and legally justified. Even if you win, the state has rendered your life a tragedy. As Albert Jay Nock so aptly put it, "Our enemy, the state".

However, respect for the law and those who would enforce I have not. Help I will not. I will fight it as much as I can.

Let me simplify this, those who would help "enforce" the MLPA are aiding and abetting tyranny and evil.

I am sorry if you are offended by this, but there is no amelioration available, as in "I respect but...". Ain't gonna cut it. If you saw all that they did to us, and how they did it, it is a knife in our backs, and I can't lessen my feelings or moderate my words.

[Iceman]

I'm going to back further than Jefferson, to one of his main inspirations, John Locke:

Speaking of "Lost" I am stoked to watch Alcatraz tonight, I can almost close my eyes and swear it is LOST!

[blitzburgh]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Speaking of "Lost" I am stoked to watch Alcatraz tonight, I can almost close my eyes and swear it is LOST!

DUDE SERIOUSLY! I love AND hate that show already. Because you know, friggin' JJ Abrahms can take the show in a million directions and can keep you going for years & years.....dang it.

[mtnbykr2]

Originally Posted by blitzburgh

DUDE SERIOUSLY! I love AND hate that show already. Because you know, friggin' JJ Abrahms can take the show in a million directions and can keep you going for years & years.....dang it.

That's funny I just wrote that...but forgot to hit "submit"

[BWE]

OK, 'nuff said

[mtnbykr2]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Speaking of "Lost" I am stoked to watch Alcatraz tonight, I can almost close my eyes and swear it is LOST!

too funny...but seriously I loved that show

[yaky yak]

[QUOTE=robmandel;105529]I've been following this for a bit, and hesitated to chime in, but here's the thing. there's two kinds of crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Malum in se - Evil in itself. Murder, rape, assault, etc., need no proving as to the wrongness. they are evil because they are evil, and to others especially.

the other is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

malum prohibitum - evil because it's prohibited by law. everything from building code violations to prostituion are evil only because it's said so by law.


Well said, bring on the revolution ! Oh wait they've already stripped us of most our firearm rights, break out the sling shots!
Where does this end? Today MLPA, tomorrow they'll be putting us in re-education camps.
Our forefather couldn't hunt or fish in the kings forests, The sheriff would enforce this law for the king. Funny how history has a way of repeating its self.