[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
complex, yes....logical, no
Posted by fsfst1 on Dec 02 2005
I fail to understand what you meen when you say "those FISH don't "Belong" to us until they are caught." That a pretty obvious point (we do have to catch them), but what the IFQ is trying to state is that the fish (once caught) belongs to the IFQ of the charter boat captain and not the fisherman that caught the fish. Some may argue, but like was previously posted, a fisherman on a salmon charter wouldn't be able to keep a legally caught halibut if the charter captain didn't have an IFQ for the fish. This alone proves that the proposed IFQ puts the possession of the fish in the captains IFQ and not in the sportfishermans 2 fish limit. Thus, this plan goes totally against the legal possession rule that the state currently has in place which states that a fish belongs to (or is the possession of) the angler that hooked it.
However, if this same angler was fishing from his boat (or his friends, neighbors, enemies, or any other none paying vessel for that matter), he could legally catch and keep the salmon as well as the halibut. The only difference is the fact that the angler was on a charter boat....It is kinda like the question of the legality (or illegality)of prostitution.
How can the state keep or prevent someone from making money on an activity that they can legally do for free?
There are definatley ways to regulate a sportfishery, but in my opinion, this is an absolute nightmare of a way. Why? Because the people it REALLY hurts is the new charter captains (who probably need the money) and the anglers who aren't wealthy enough to own their on boat or spend large money on an expensive chater (which will be the case if the IFQ passes). Current charter prices are reasonable and a fisherman can easily catch enough weight in fish to justify the cost. However, if the IFQ passes, the halibut fishery becomes one for only the wealthy to participate. You may laugh, but hunting can already be classified as a sport for the wealthy in many states and I would sure hate for fishing to head down the same path.
As for your argument that the fish belong to the "government" and not "us" until caught, I would argue that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. So yes, that fish does belong to us unless "we the people" allow the "politions" to take them from us. It is our decision on how to handle our fishery and the politicians should be a mouthpeace for us. So speak up....FOR OR AGAINST.....and let us decide the outcome of our fishery.
Previous: Very Complex huh! Cutter Nov 29 2005
Next: Other Side thoughts Cutter Nov 23 2005