California "bassocide" 2024
Big C reply :
California has passed a law that states; if you catch any bass, blue gill, striped bass, ect. in the California Delta you have to kill it as an invasive species. So the question is; if this law was passed in your neck of the woods, what would you do?
And please, don't turn this topic into a political argument.
-Mgmt.
Fisher-O-men reply :
On the books? What does that mean? Is this the effort to save the Salmon, Steelhead and Smelt in the Delta?
Big C reply :
Correction, they have passed it. It is Bill S2894. It is to save the "Clear Lake Hitch". Tom posted a thread in the Tournaments section, "The Fate Of Bass Tournaments", for more info.
WRB reply :
Keep in mind this is a United States Senate bill S1894, not a state bill, the reason maybe federal funding.
Non- political answer;
You can't violate state regulations during a tournament, if the regs state you can't catch and release...you would be DQ'd. If the question is would I violate state regulations knowing I could be cited, no! I would bass fish where the regulations allowed for C&R or allowed for a choice to keep and eat.
Tom
BaitMonkey1984 reply :
I am probably in the minority here. I keep fish to eat on occasion, including bass. I have skin mounts.
However, even conceding that the fisheries biologists know much more than me- I would not abide by this law. With that said, I will not whine, or complain about any fine I get for not doing so.
WRB reply :
In California the fine is confiscated boat, motor, tackle and fishing license until you make a court appearance...you may start whining.On 10/23/2015 at 9:59 AM, BaitMonkey1984 said:I am probably in the minority here. I keep fish to eat on occasion, including bass. I have skin mounts.
However, even conceding that the fisheries biologists know much more than me- I would not abide by this law. With that said, I will not whine, or complain about any fine I get for not doing so.
Tom
BaitMonkey1984 reply :
Wow that is a tough fine. Good thing I am a lawyer myself, so won't have legal fees to add to the fines.
hatrix reply :
That's pretty wild. But in reality I doubt it's a big deal even if everyone killed every bass they caught in the delta. It would probably take a very long time to really hurt the population as I bet their numbers are insane. It might even start producing even bigger fish f people killed what they caught.
I am not a big fan of total eradication but I am for thinning the herd sometimes. We do throw any catfish caught at my mothers in the woods but that is different. I also could care less if some one wants to skin mount a fish. It's a drop in the bucket really.
Ski213 reply :
That's kind of a tough call. I guess if I can't play by the rules in a given sandbox I'll find a different sandbox to play in
Just out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind this law?
Alonerankin2 reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 10:17 AM, BaitMonkey1984 said:Wow that is a tough fine. Good thing I am a lawyer myself, so won't have legal fees to add to the fines.
Haha.. That's well played. Maybe you can negotiate a plea with the "Your Honor" and walk out unscathed... Maybe
Alonerankin2 reply :
I would quit fishing.. If I'm going to break laws.. They won't be fishing laws. A man has to choose his battles, this one I will pass on.
WRB reply :
It's impossible to fish out 1,500 mile fishery, it must be poisoned it with rotenone and that doesn't kill all the fish. What this bill will do is decimate sport fishing in the delta. There is a chance the U.S. Congress will not fund this bill, however it's tied to climate change that is popular at this time.
With your tournament entry you may get serval recipes for preparing bass. Keep in mind you can only catch 5 bass with no release.
Tom
Fisher-O-men reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 10:17 AM, BaitMonkey1984 said:Wow that is a tough fine. Good thing I am a lawyer myself, so won't have legal fees to add to the fines.
But according to the old addage, you would have a fool for a client.
Catt reply :
Y'all do not want my opinion 
blckshirt98 reply :
I dunno what tournament fisherman would do but as a recreational angler I'd just let them go. "It slipped out of my hand back into the water while I was holding it."
Slade House reply :
Ok, so it hasn't passed the house or the senate. it was introduced in the senate in July, that's just introduced, then it was recently heard by a committee 3 weeks ago. thats it, it won't pass the senate , and definitley won't pass the house. Don't forget the republicans hold a super majority over the house and the senate and would never let this drought bill pass. A senate bill gets introduced, then it must go to committee , then it must pass a vote in the comittee, then it goes for a vote in the senate, if it passes the vote it goes over to the house , where it goes to committee , must be passed by vote in committee, then it goes to the house for a vote, then if it passes it has to go to a conference committee where the house and the senate have to agree on all of the amendements before it goes to the president.
also the repulbicans passed their own version in the house earlier in 2015, which also won't go anywhere , this bill is just a reaction to that bill
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1894 for more info
gulfcaptain reply :
So this is kind of the the Fed's law against weed, but then some states allow it. As I read on here, Still has to pass House. And California fish and game law protects ALL gamefish. The list other then bullhead and silversides are all gamefish. The DFG would have to regulate this law even if it was a Federal action. This means State Fish and Game will have to pass regulations for this. Somehow I don't see the FBI regulating fisherman if the CA DFG doesn't inact regulations according to Fed law. And since it has to pass congress, FLW, BASS, ABA, and all other organizations could submit petitions as well as local businesses that thrive on the tourisim of the delta and it's fishery. And since it is a federal action that means ALL fisherman in each state could do this and have it submitted to congress as well as each of their representitives. As much pushback as there was for the tunnels in the delta, odds are there would be even more pushback against this.
deaknh03 reply :
This is yet another case where the federal govt thinks they know whats best for each individual state..they dont. This is and should be a state and state only matter.
Lund Explorer reply :
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!
MassBass reply :
They could ship the stripers to the east coast, we could use some more.
Derekbass02 reply :
I would probably just fish for some other species of fish. Bass aren't the only fun species to catch in my area. My vote is fish for some other species.
Josh Smith reply :
What is different now that wasn't different on their introduction to Kalifornia?
Introduction took place with the railroad in lots of instances, though I can't say for certain this is one of them.
What is happening now that's changed, that bass must be killed?
Josh
HoosierHawgs reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 7:45 PM, Lund Explorer said:Amazing!
24 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!
It's an issue of our own standards that we live by. Not what others tell us is right and wrong.
hatrix reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 11:02 AM, WRB said:It's impossible to fish out 1,500 mile fishery, it must be poisoned it with rotenone and that doesn't kill all the fish. What this bill will do is decimate sport fishing in the delta. There is a chance the U.S. Congress will not fund this bill, however it's tied to climate change that is popular at this time.
With your tournament entry you may get serval recipes for preparing bass. Keep in mind you can only catch 5 bass with no release.
Tom
That's what I was thinking. I didn't know it was 1.5k miles though. I think people are way to worried sometimes about conservation on bass fishing. The mindset that every fish has to go back can actually hurt a fishery more then keeping a select amount.
Unless fish are being caught commercially in huge numbers anglers using poles to catch fish 1 at a time will never stop the fish. It could be a good thing to keep fish as I bet the delta is totally choked with fish. People should keep any fish they want as long as it is legal no matter how big it is. The whole thing about releasing it for someone else's to catch is kinda silly. I can agree with that in a pond where there might be 5-10 fish in the whole place like that. But in places with vast amounts of water it probably will never be caught again.
HoosierHawgs reply :
Keep all you guys want, I dint care. The point is the law is unjust. Ley people take or not take fish, but you can't sit here and tell then (by law) that they have to do one or the other. That's just stupid, and frankly, nearly unconstitutional.On 10/23/2015 at 11:49 PM, hatrix said:That's what I was thinking. I didn't know it was 1.5k miles though. I think people are way to worried sometimes about conservation on bass fishing. The mindset that every fish has to go back can actually hurt a fishery more then keeping a select amount.
Unless fish are being caught commercially in huge numbers anglers using poles to catch fish 1 at a time will never stop the fish. It could be a good thing to keep fish as I bet the delta is totally choked with fish. People should keep any fish they want as long as it is legal no matter how big it is. The whole thing about releasing it for someone else's to catch is kinda silly. I can agree with that in a pond where there might be 5-10 fish in the whole place like that. But in places with vast amounts of water it probably will never be caught again.
Lund Explorer reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 10:49 PM, HoosierHawgs said:It's an issue of our own standards that we live by. Not what others tell us is right and wrong.
It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law.
The vast majority have shown that they would break this hypothetical law. Are there any other laws that the majority are willing to break? Perhaps we should all agree to trespass on other people's private property to fish their ponds. Should we toss out creel or size limits?
When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong.
Funny how this forum's rules include a statement regarding that very concept. I'll bet the moderators expect us to follow that rule!
Fisher-O-men reply :
Is it morally right to obey unjust laws?
blckshirt98 reply :
There's common sense laws and there's stupid laws. Killing all "invasive" fish in the CA Delta is a beyond stupid law.
Senko lover reply :
Okay, I'm not an expert in these matters but the results of this poll are disturbing.
So some of you think that if you ignore those rules, it's going to put you in better standing with the government when you try to get them repealed? Sheesh, if you don't respect the rules, they're not going to respect your appeals to restore catch and release policies.
If you won't kill bass, find a small pond or another body of water that doesn't have these rules. Don't destroy your chances of ever being able to throw fish back again.
A law is a law, stupid or not.
hatrix reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:20 AM, Fisher-O-men said:Is it morally right to obey unjust laws?
It kinda is. That was what this country was about originally.
To say if you break a law you are the same to someone who breaks any other law is crazy. Everyone on here has broken laws and most on a regular basis. I bet everyone was speeding at one point this week or jaywalking or didn't wear a seat belt ect.
You can do what you want if it was a real law of it bothered you so. Who is really going to see you throw a fish back anyways. I am not sayin my go out and do anything you want but let's be realistic. No one will ever know. Just like no one will ever know like no one knows you didn't stop for 3 seconds this morning at that stop sign. It was still illegal and you did it any ways.
Before anyone says they don't do stuff like I mentioned above I am going to call BS and if by chance you happen to be the perfect person you are 1 in a million.
hatrix reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:49 AM, Senko lover said:Okay, I'm not an expert in these matters but the results of this poll are disturbing.
So some of you think that if you ignore those rules, it's going to put you in better standing with the government when you try to get them repealed? Sheesh, if you don't respect the rules, they're not going to respect your appeals to restore catch and release policies.
If you won't kill bass, find a small pond or another body of water that doesn't have these rules. Don't destroy your chances of ever being able to throw fish back again.
A law is a law, stupid or not.
You have it backwards as do most people. The majority is supposed to make the laws not the minority that think they know what is best for you. Only you can decide what is best for you not some invisable person who has no clue. Freedoms are few are far between these days but we won't get into that.
This topic is going to be locked anyways so get it in while you can.
K_Mac reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:20 AM, Fisher-O-men said:Is it morally right to obey unjust laws?
This is the real question. It is not a simple one. When laws are passed, whether by decree or the ruling majority, that are counter to our "God given" rights are we bound to comply? We are all bound by the consequences of disobedience. That is foundation on which all governments are built... and fall.
MassBass reply :
Lets throw a shipload of tea in the California Delta
blckshirt98 reply :
I also like to think that any of the Department of Fish and Wildlife officers that routinely patrol the Delta will have some respect for the wildlife of the Delta and be somewhat understanding of why people wouldn't abide by the law and not be a power tripping a-hole and ticket everyone they see throwing fish back. Driving over the speed limit can get you fined and ticketed as well but not everyone sticks to the hard speed limit, nor does every police officer ticket someone for driving over the speed limit.
All that being said something like this will never be passed because it would kill the business and communities along the Delta that rely on the sportfishing industry.
monkeyman3dee reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 3:06 AM, MassBass said:Lets throw a shipload of tea in the California Delta
This.
/thread
HoosierHawgs reply :
Please read my above post. This law is unjust. Is MLK or other civil rights activist who peacefully disobeyed unjust laws morally wrong too?On 10/24/2015 at 12:01 AM, Lund Explorer said:It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law.
The vast majority have shown that they would break this hypothetical law. Are there any other laws that the majority are willing to break? Perhaps we should all agree to trespass on other people's private property to fish their ponds. Should we toss out creel or size limits?
When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong.
Funny how this forum's rules include a statement regarding that very concept. I'll bet the moderators expect us to follow that rule!
MIbassyaker reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 8:23 AM, Big C said:And please, don't turn this topic into a political argument.
-Mgmt.
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?
K_Mac reply :
This isn't a discussion about partisan politics. It is about laws, their impact on bass fishing, and how we respond to and become a part of the process IMO. Two very different things. Of course that is only my opinion, and I don't have a vote here.
Scott F reply :
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.On 10/24/2015 at 3:37 AM, HoosierHawgs said:Please read my above post. This law is unjust. Is MLK or other civil rights activist who peacefully disobeyed unjust laws morally wrong too?
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?
MIbassyaker reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:20 AM, Fisher-O-men said:Is it morally right to obey unjust laws?
In a world in which the true level of logical and evidentiary justification for any proposition (or law) is always immediately known with 100% certainty and zero chance of error......perhaps not.
But nothing in my experience suggests I live in such a world.
K_Mac reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 3:06 AM, MassBass said:Lets throw a shipload of tea in the California Delta
I like tea.
Lund Explorer reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 3:37 AM, HoosierHawgs said:Please read my above post. This law is unjust. Is MLK or other civil rights activist who peacefully disobeyed unjust laws morally wrong too?
Just how far back in the bus did you have to go to stretch that point?!?!?
HoosierHawgs reply :
Never said that was just either. (killing all carp that isOn 10/24/2015 at 4:18 AM, Scott F said: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?
Jar11591 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:01 AM, Lund Explorer said:It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law.
The vast majority have shown that they would break this hypothetical law. Are there any other laws that the majority are willing to break? Perhaps we should all agree to trespass on other people's private property to fish their ponds. Should we toss out creel or size limits?
When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong.
Funny how this forum's rules include a statement regarding that very concept. I'll bet the moderators expect us to follow that rule!
Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the government could pass NO law that you wouldn't obey? No matter how much that law goes against your personal standard of decency? I bet you go 5-10 mph over the speed limit from time to time. Soooooo, you just joined "the ones who don't" follow the law right?
Jar11591 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:01 AM, Lund Explorer said:
When you don't put human emotions into the subject, it becomes much easier to decide the difference between right and wrong.
Sounds a lot like the whole "I was just following orders" defense to me. Doesn't quite cut it for me.
Jar11591 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 6:13 AM, Lund Explorer said:Just how far back in the bus did you have to go to stretch that point?!?!?
He only had to go back as far as your post in which you said "its an issue of obeying a wriiten law".
Its the same idea, though two totally different topics. I'm sure people back then were pretty heavy on the whole "its the law" thing.
Now I'm not saying this "kill all the bass law" is just or unjust, and luckily I don't have to figure it out because this particular law will not affect me.
K_Mac reply :
The idea that breaking any law is the same as any other is not really valid. Our entire justice system is based on the punishment being equal to the crime. Breaking a fishing law and paying a fine is not the same as a violent felony. Arguing that some laws are unjust, and being willing to face the consequences of disobedience to those laws in order to change them goes back a long way. The "back of the bus" reference does nothing to further this discussion.
Lund Explorer reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 6:52 AM, Jar11591 said:He only had to go back as far as your post in which you said "its an issue of obeying a wriiten law".
Its the same idea, though two totally different topics. I'm sure people back then were pretty heavy on the whole "its the law" thing.
Now I'm not saying this "kill all the bass law" is just or unjust, and luckily I don't have to figure it out because this particular law will not affect me.
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.
Jar11591 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 7:01 AM, Lund Explorer said: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 are the ONLY one comparing the subject-matter of the two.
Its definitely clear someone is unarmed in the wits department. & Ya know, its a good thing our government is so darned perfect, so now nobody has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong! And by this reasoning (or lack thereof), if its legal, it MUST be morally correct. Right? Tell me I'm wrong Mr. Wit
Senko lover reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 1:06 AM, hatrix said:You have it backwards as do most people. The majority is supposed to make the laws not the minority that think they know what is best for you. Only you can decide what is best for you not some invisable person who has no clue. Freedoms are few are far between these days but we won't get into that.
This topic is going to be locked anyways so get it in while you can.
Wow, back from the fair and it's still going. I thought it would be locked haha.
Yes, I agree with you for the most part.
BUT I think there are much better ways to protest than to disobey the rules. Doing the latter just gives you a worse chance of having the rule taken away. I'm probably biased because I've learned that with my parents lol 
Starchalopakis reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 7:01 AM, Lund Explorer said: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 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 7:01 AM, Lund Explorer said: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 reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
There's also nothing in the constitution about Judicial review... But the Supreme court knocks down laws regularly....On 10/24/2015 at 9:37 AM, VolFan said: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".
Lund Explorer reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 8:32 AM, deaknh03 said: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.
On 10/24/2015 at 8:49 AM, K_Mac said: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!
On 10/23/2015 at 7:45 PM, Lund Explorer said:Amazing!
2434 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 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 4:07 AM, MIbassyaker said: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 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 9:47 AM, HoosierHawgs said: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 reply :
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.On 10/24/2015 at 9:57 AM, VolFan said:There's plenty in various places about the three branches of government balancing each other. Try again.
K_Mac reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
You're missing the point. I was pointing out a clear fallacy in your logic.On 10/24/2015 at 10:07 AM, VolFan said: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.
VolFan reply :
What was the fallacy?
WPCfishing reply :
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 reply :
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 reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:20 AM, Fisher-O-men said:Is it morally right to obey unjust laws?
Watch the movie "Gone Baby Gone" from 2007 with Casey Afleck and Morgan Freeman
slonezp reply :
Vote the bastages out of office
gulfcaptain reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 4:18 AM, Scott F said: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 reply :
Sorry about the double post....deleted second.
slonezp reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 9:44 PM, WPCfishing said: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 reply :
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.
K_Mac reply :
Mainebass1984 I agree with most of what you said. I do think that discussion of bass fishing laws among this group is a good way of raising awareness, and that is a good start.
gobig reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 10:30 PM, slonezp said:Vote the bastages out of office
Voting seems to have become ceremonial at best.
HoosierHawgs reply :
That because its not in the constitution we don't have any right to fish for bass on public water and catch and release them.On 10/24/2015 at 7:59 PM, VolFan said:What was the fallacy?
Alonerankin2 reply :
Hmm, so we kill every other fish type to try & save the hitch.. Got it.
gulfcaptain reply :
The delta doesn't have hitch, it has Delta Smelt which are about 2" long. Clear lake has hitch. Two different bodies of water but under what it sounds is the same law to try and push through. California stopped deverting water away from the delta to protect the smelt which btw also swim in and out of saltwater. The breed in freshwater after the first heavy rains and live in a more brackish water enviornment. Clear Lake is a natural lake with a native forage fish (hitch) which they are worried about. I believe everything goes in cycles and the shear size of the delta could hold areas of smelt that are overlooked or bypassed in the system. Just a thought though, if they stopped trying to destroy all the hydrilla in the delta maybe the delta smelt would have more places to hide away from preditory fish. If fry seek refuge in the grasses for safety and are sprayed and destroyed well that's not really helpful for them either. Maybe if we did reseach and looked back at when they decided to try to control the weeds if it corresponds in relation to the drop off of these two rough fish populations, maybe that is the problem and not the bass and other targeted "invasives". Anyone ever think of that?
VolFan reply :
On 10/25/2015 at 12:14 AM, HoosierHawgs said:That because its not in the constitution we don't have any right to fish for bass on public water and catch and release them.
You're confusing "rights" with "opportunities" and "options". I don't agree with the proposed removals, because they aren't an accomplish-able task given the size and nature of the CA Delta, not to mention the amount of that area's economy that is based on sport fishing for these fish that have been there for decades. And they are expensive in nature and would put an untenable burden on the LEOs responsible for enforcement. Arguing it as a "right" is a losing battle.
Dogmatic reply :
Ah, as per the poll question(might want to re-read it gulfcaptain)..."in my neck of the woods", its perfectly legal to catch, livewell, and release into another body of water...especially, private water. ; )
everythingthatswims reply :
The law is ridiculous but if I had a pond anywhere near the delta I could definitely make the best of it 
Caliyak reply :
How political can I get without getting kicked off this site? I live here so I have strong feelings about this, really @#$%&* strong feelings.
Mswen reply :
Honestly, if the bass are seriously threatening native species, I would probably be in favor of trying to protect those species. If someone decides that they enjoy fishing for Snakeheads on the East Coast, at the cost of destroying bass fisheries, would you defend their decision the same way you're defending anyone who doesn't like this law? What about anyone who thinks Asian Carp might actually improve the Great Lakes? If the bass are gone, I could always fish for a native species. (Not that I live anywhere near the CA Delta)
That said, trying to force people to do what you think is right often triggers a lot more resentment than compliance. Rather than forcing people to kill every bass, which is never going to happen, it would be easier and smarter to just get rid of size and possession limits, or even allow commercial fishing of bass and bluegill.
Mswen reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 11:53 PM, Mainebass1984 said: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.
Don't mean to change the subject, but I have a question I have to ask. I heard about the first one (soft plastics), and I understand the reasoning behind that and the second (barbless hooks), but what was the the third supposed to accomplish, besides preventing a lot of people from fishing, and forcing duck hunters into a boat? It would make fishing virtually all rivers/streams impossible, and prevent anglers from accessing most fish in larger waters. Was that the intention?
Jtrout reply :
Lol i would take them and put them in a pond by my house haha
Mswen reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 10:06 PM, Dogmatic said: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.
I seem to have a talent for releasing fish at boatside, but somehow the "dinks" are never as cooperative as the "pigs".
deaknh03 reply :
I would quit voting in the moonbats California is notorious for.
blckshirt98 reply :
I'm actually more worried about the laws they're trying to pass to ban lead weights in Calfornia. Tungsten is just too expensive and steel rusts.
slonezp reply :
On 10/26/2015 at 8:50 AM, Mswen said:Honestly, if the bass are seriously threatening native species, I would probably be in favor of trying to protect those species. If someone decides that they enjoy fishing for Snakeheads on the East Coast, at the cost of destroying bass fisheries, would you defend their decision the same way you're defending anyone who doesn't like this law? What about anyone who thinks Asian Carp might actually improve the Great Lakes? If the bass are gone, I could always fish for a native species. (Not that I live anywhere near the CA Delta)
That said, trying to force people to do what you think is right often triggers a lot more resentment than compliance. Rather than forcing people to kill every bass, which is never going to happen, it would be easier and smarter to just get rid of size and possession limits, or even allow commercial fishing of bass and bluegill.
Asian carp won't improve the Great Lakes, and probably wouldn't thrive. The carp are filter feeders and the zebra mussels have removed the microscopic food the carp feed on. In addition, the Great Lakes are deep and lack current which, I understand, is needed for the carp to successfully reproduce.
Salmonoids were stocked into the Great Lakes to reduce the alewife population. They are not native to the Great Lakes. I believe brown trout, lake trout, and 1 species of rainbow trout are native. Kings, coho's, and the remaining trout species are all invasive. These fish are stocked on an annual basis and most cannot reproduce naturally. The sport fishing industry on the Great Lakes is big business and generates revenue for the state(s).
I think this law is just another knife in the heart of those that love the outdoors and utilize the fisheries. The "I know better than you" mentality is an epidemic among politicians and lawmakers on both local and federal levels.
Mainebass1984 reply :
On 10/26/2015 at 9:48 AM, slonezp said:Asian carp won't improve the Great Lakes, and probably wouldn't thrive. The carp are filter feeders and the zebra mussels have removed the microscopic food the carp feed on. In addition, the Great Lakes are deep and lack current which, I understand, is needed for the carp to successfully reproduce.
Salmonoids were stocked into the Great Lakes to reduce the alewife population. They are not native to the Great Lakes. I believe brown trout, lake trout, and 1 species of rainbow trout are native. Kings, coho's, and the remaining trout species are all invasive. These fish are stocked on an annual basis and most cannot reproduce naturally. The sport fishing industry on the Great Lakes is big business and generates revenue for the state(s).
I think this law is just another knife in the heart of those that love the outdoors and utilize the fisheries. The "I know better than you" mentality is an epidemic among politicians and lawmakers on both local and federal levels.
Brown Trout are native to Europe. Rainbows are native west of the rocky mountains. Everywhere else they have been introduced. The only native salmonoids in the great lakes are landlocked atlantic salmon, brook trout and lake trout. Brook trout and lake trout are both actually char.
Choporoz reply :
How many of you who have expressed outrage have written your elected representatives on this issue? Not just Californians - this is a US bill...?
On 10/23/2015 at 7:31 PM, deaknh03 said:This is yet another case where the federal govt thinks they know whats best for each individual state..they dont. This is and should be a state and state only matter.
I'm a fan of states' rights, however, this bill was introduced by Boxer and Feinstein - So, IMO, the problem is more like a case of National representatives using their Federal seats to circumvent their own state's rights. Subtle difference, but I blame the individuals involved more than the entire institution.
On 10/23/2015 at 8:23 AM, Big C said:If your local government made it law to kill every bass you caught, would you?
Kill
Not Kill
Quit Fishing (not really an option)
-Mgmt.
I don't live in CA, but shouldn't there be an option to fish elsewhere?
Mainebass1984 reply :
On 10/26/2015 at 9:08 AM, Mswen said:Don't mean to change the subject, but I have a question I have to ask. I heard about the first one (soft plastics), and I understand the reasoning behind that and the second (barbless hooks), but what was the the third supposed to accomplish, besides preventing a lot of people from fishing, and forcing duck hunters into a boat? It would make fishing virtually all rivers/streams impossible, and prevent anglers from accessing most fish in larger waters. Was that the intention?
I honestly can not say I do not know the true intention of prohibiting recreational activities within 200ft of shore. I can only assume their reasoning. I had heard that landowners didn't want people fishing their docks and boats. I think they wanted to prevent any chance of damage to their property. I honestly don't know, just making assumptions.
bigfruits reply :
"it slipped right out of my hands, officer!"
Big C reply :
On 10/26/2015 at 9:19 PM, Choporoz said:
I don't live in CA, but shouldn't there be an option to fish elsewhere?
The question is "If your local government made it law to kill every bass you caught, would you?" it's a hypothetical question where the law would cover all the bodies of water you fish.
gulfcaptain reply :
On 10/25/2015 at 7:31 AM, Dogmatic said:Ah, as per the poll question(might want to re-read it gulfcaptain)..."in my neck of the woods", its perfectly legal to catch, livewell, and release into another body of water...especially, private water. ; )
I understood the op question. Answered it. But then also referenced a few other posts from others to clearify and respond to those posts without quoting 15 different responses. Too much work for that. Just like the post refering to banning lead.....They have been trying to do that since the early 90's. Yep can still buy a lead sinker in a tackle store. Been fighting to ban that for 20 years. Hasn't happened yet.
stkbassn reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:20 AM, Fisher-O-men said:Is it morally right to obey unjust laws?
Amen. I won't obey a law just because it's a "law". Sorry, I'm not a sheep and don't plan to be one in my lifetime. I voted "Not Kill" and would never obey such a law.
Raul reply :
Unfortunately most of the fish species we love are NON NATIVE almost anywhere we find them.
Mainebass1984 reply :
On 10/27/2015 at 12:07 AM, gulfcaptain said:I understood the op question. Answered it. But then also referenced a few other posts from others to clearify and respond to those posts without quoting 15 different responses. Too much work for that. Just like the post refering to banning lead.....They have been trying to do that since the early 90's. Yep can still buy a lead sinker in a tackle store. Been fighting to ban that for 20 years. Hasn't happened yet.
Lead sinkers are banned here in the northeast. It is illegal to possess lead sinkers or jigs with lead weight under a certain size. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont all have laws regarding using lead.
Basswhippa reply :
Throw me in with the civil disobedience crowd. It is a "black bass" after all. 
Catch 22 reply :
On 10/27/2015 at 10:20 AM, Basswhippa said:Throw me in with the civil disobedience crowd. It is a "black bass" after all.
A little civil disobedience is a good thing if done right. The anti`s are trying to take from us, so pushing and shoving back is OK by me. It bothers me that they want to play God by killing one species to save another.
BASS LIVES MATTER
BassMaster17 reply :
On 10/23/2015 at 1:46 PM, blckshirt98 said:I dunno what tournament fisherman would do but as a recreational angler I'd just let them go. "It slipped out of my hand back into the water while I was holding it"
that would be my #1 quote if i fished on the delta, its too perfect.
rboat reply :
I think whoever the idiot is who came up with this legal nonsense should be caught and never released. No one has the right to tell you that you must kill a fish you caught. The bass would most likely slip out of my hands back into the water. You know they can be very slippery critters.
Big C reply :
On 10/27/2015 at 8:37 PM, Catch 22 said:BASS LIVES MATTER
It's the other BM, "Bass Matter"
gobig reply :
Striped bass have coexisted with these so called threatened native fish for more than 135 years and black bass for 140 years. I would say that the threat is probably not the bass but man.
hawgenvy reply :
There are wonderful native fish species that anglers can catch throughout the world. And when non-native species are introduced, there may be unforeseen and disastrous consequences for native species and for other aspects of the victimized aquatic ecosystem. Florida strain largemouth bass have been introduced all over the globe for sport. If and when they become top predators in those areas there is the potential for extinction of entire native species. This, apparently, is happening now in areas of Africa. What man does selfishly and shortsightedly, over and over, that ends up screwing over natural ecosystems is unconscionable. It seems we don't learn from our mistakes. And we sometimes respond emotionally rather than intellectually to sometimes prudent laws that are put in place to try to correct the damage.
I know next to nothing about the aspect of this proposal that would prohibit anglers from returning non-native species into the waters of the Delta. But it's worth hearing the argument in some detail, and the science behind it, before reaching a rational and well thought out decision on whether that provision has merit.
We humans, and especially bass anglers, must be responsible stewards of our freshwater habitats, and that means acting selflessly when it's the right thing to do; and it means listening to the opinions of the biologists who spend their careers studying these habitats. The scientists might not always be right, but they know a lot more than I do.
And I probably don't know as much about this stuff as some of the other anglers on this site, but it is clear that many posts here are generated through emotion rather than through a deeper intellectual understanding. And that is a shame.
bigfruits reply :
On 10/24/2015 at 12:49 AM, Senko lover said:
If you won't kill bass, find a small pond or another body of water that doesn't have these rules.
do you ever drive over the speed limit? if so, would you consider riding a bicycle and getting rid of the car so as to not break the law?
On 10/24/2015 at 12:01 AM, Lund Explorer said:It is an issue of obeying a written law. Everyone has the choice to either live by those laws or join those who don't. If someone decides to break the law, they are no better or worse than anyone else who breaks another law.
so a person who jay walks and another who murders are the same in your eyes?
a law telling me to kill something is not one that I would follow just because it was a law. they can kill them without my help. (and they will as I live on the east coast!
the reel ess reply :
I voted wrong. But to tell the truth, CA's laws are so stupid I'd disobey most of them whenever I could get away with it. That state's elected officials have decided to screw the entire state into the ground forever. They always choose the stupidest, least logical, most expensive option and put the pedal to the metal.
the reel ess reply :
On 10/28/2015 at 1:56 PM, gobig said:Striped bass have coexisted with these so called threatened native fish for more than 135 years and black bass for 140 years. I would say that the threat is probably not the bass but man.
Any species of gamefish in the striped bass' range is another source of food.
Dye99 reply :
I live here. And the laws that are passed are a joke.
I don't pay attention to many of them now, so Cali can go to hell, Im not going to start listening to them in the future.
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.