Not good ...

[kelpangler]

Originally Posted by MPA Supporter

You still have the majority of the surrounding waters to fish. roughly 75 to 80% to be exact.

Wow, what total ignorance. And we should be expected to trust anything about this process? Nothing but flawed, sir.

[ChefT]

........ Thoughts .....

Right to Fish
Submitted by juliusbragg on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 23:50
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
0
votes
I am continuing my "right to travel by automobile fight" and have added the right to fish argument. Here is my recent letter to the department of Fish and Game of California.

Hello,
Im wondering why, and how, a sports fishing license is "required" to fish in the ocean, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/fish...shdescrip.html
according to the website, when clearly one is not needed according to The Fish and Game code and the California constitution?

Please clarify.
Cal. Fish and Game code Sec. 3 http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/3.html
The "Right" to fish has long been acquired, and well established in this state. Sec 3 of the Fish and Game code says:

"...This code shall not impair any

privilege granted or right acquired..."

Cal. Fish and Game Code Sec. 7153(a) http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/7153.html
7153(a) says: (emphasis mine)

"A sport fishing license is NOT required to take fish by

any legal means, for any purpose other than profit, from a public

pier, as defined by the commission, in the ocean waters of the state,

or..."

and finally and most importantly the California constitution in Article 1, sec 25 http://law.onecle.com/california/con...icle_1/25.html

states that Fishing is a "Right".

Art. I Sec. 25:

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from

the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting

upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the

State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the

people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be

passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public

lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water

containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;

provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season

when and the conditions under which the different species of fish

may be taken.

Thank you




Fuck um.... Ill bless and respect the current boundaries ...
but i promise you this ..... i will pull.... post .... and go to court for the fish I catch for my family and friends.......
and no.... i will not pay for a fishing License next year.... I'll double it and give it to Hubbs.....

any one now a good lawyer ....?
may be of some help .....

[jorluivil]

Originally Posted by ChefT

........ Thoughts .....

Right to Fish
Submitted by juliusbragg on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 23:50
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
0
votes
I am continuing my "right to travel by automobile fight" and have added the right to fish argument. Here is my recent letter to the department of Fish and Game of California.

Hello,
Im wondering why, and how, a sports fishing license is "required" to fish in the ocean, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/fish...shdescrip.html
according to the website, when clearly one is not needed according to The Fish and Game code and the California constitution?

Please clarify.
Cal. Fish and Game code Sec. 3 http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/3.html
The "Right" to fish has long been acquired, and well established in this state. Sec 3 of the Fish and Game code says:

"...This code shall not impair any

privilege granted or right acquired..."

Cal. Fish and Game Code Sec. 7153(a) http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/7153.html
7153(a) says: (emphasis mine)

"A sport fishing license is NOT required to take fish by

any legal means, for any purpose other than profit, from a public

pier, as defined by the commission, in the ocean waters of the state,

or..."

and finally and most importantly the California constitution in Article 1, sec 25 http://law.onecle.com/california/con...icle_1/25.html

states that Fishing is a "Right".

Art. I Sec. 25:

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from

the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting

upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the

State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the

people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be

passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public

lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water

containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;

provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season

when and the conditions under which the different species of fish

may be taken.

Thank you




Fuck um.... Ill bless and respect the current boundaries ...
but i promise you this ..... i will pull.... post .... and go to court for the fish I catch for my family and friends.......
and no.... i will not pay for a fishing License next year.... I'll double it and give it to Hubbs.....

any one now a good lawyer ....?
may be of some help .....

I am seriously considering not buying a license next year.

[mtnbykr2]

Originally Posted by jorluivil

I am seriously considering not buying a license next year.

I am with you on this one, I believe that maybe, just maybe, we will have a whole bunch of people feeling the same way...between this BS and the last deal about the private lake studdies being imposed by some other a$$hats, a mass exodus from this corruptly run state is not far off.
Every last politician that has anything to do with FUfornia should be run out

[bluesquids]

BTW Guys, that article(drivel) by Mike Lee is misleading... meant to read like it's a done deal game over. The ruling was for the North Coast only and will be appealed. All that guys articles have an enviro bias.
Read Paul Lebowitz article here.
http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=1501&AuthorID=59052&t=Breaking+news%21%3A+Judge+delivers+blow+to+lawsu it>>
Continue the fight by contributing here...
http://oceanaccessprotectionfund.org/

[blitzburgh]

Originally Posted by mtnbykr2

I am with you on this one, I believe that maybe, just maybe, we will have a whole bunch of people feeling the same way...between this BS and the last deal about the private lake studdies being imposed by some other a$$hats, a mass exodus from this corruptly run state is not far off.
Every last politician that has anything to do with FUfornia should be run out

X 2

[lambadmin]

clean up, clean up,
everybody,
everywhere....

There is too much good info in this thread to delete it. Good points Martin.


Please no name calling. We can do without. We have our point of view, the other side has theirs. I am sure Mr MPA Supporter is not suprised by the fire he/she is igniting. I can't quite firgure out why would someone even want to come to the forum and post where the general sentiment is quite the opposite... but I guess it's good to hear the other side, it reminds us why we all passinatelly stand by our point of view.

The worst part and the most troubling for majority of us fishermen is the fact that the whole process was based on very weak science. It is nonsense to claim that as a strong supporting factor for pro-MPA view.


Looked it up - no, it's not Stan. The young MPA Supporter posts from the Bay area. Must be drooling over the North MLPA outcome.

He'll have to try to post with a different username / different IP address if he wants to serve up a few more of his incompatible view points.

[blackcloud9]

Originally Posted by jorluivil

I am seriously considering not buying a license next year.

Well, first carefully notice the part that says "from a public pier".
Yes you have the right to fish from any public pier w/o a license.