Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Who owns the fishes?

Started by Guest_Irate Mormon_* , Sep 12 2010 09:59 PM

Prev

Next

This topic is locked

78 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 10:34 PM

I think it really is as simple as feeling they can't adequately monitor bait collecting

Well, why do they think they NEED to? Is it really that serious? I would love to hear from somebody who actually knows what happened.

And back to the philosophical realm, and in response to the introduction hypothesis, who in the hell made the State of Tennessee GOD of all the fishes in the water? They claim exclusive ownership based on putative threats? This is not right. It smacks of elitism.

Edited by Irate Mormon, 15 September 2010 - 10:35 PM.

Back to top

#42 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 16 September 2010 - 07:18 AM

No, it smack of established law. You never noticed?

Back to top

#43 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 16 September 2010 - 01:41 PM

They claim exclusive ownership based on putative threats? This is not right. It smacks of elitism.

Martin, well you know that the federal government has already claimed total control of all the birds (you cant catch them or keep them in your house, either... including the very common ones)... so the states didnt want to get left out.

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#44 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 16 September 2010 - 04:02 PM

It would make much more sense to forbid movement of any live bait between waters. I suspect the regulation is a sort of useless compromise.

Nathan you are EXACTLY right! BUT....think of the burden of proof that is required for LEO. Unless you see the person catch, follow, and document a cross basin transport, you've got nothing. How do you prove that minnow A came from the Duck and not the Buffalo? Or Hurricane Creek (which there are like a dozen of in Tennessee)? The broad paint brush covers all, which is why it is used. This was essentially the exact process in Maryland with crayfish. The original possession and use ban was targed; limited to the watershed with the invasive species. It was subsequently scaled back because of issues of enforcability even though the only public comments when the legislation was originally scoped were in favor. it is somewhat comical right now and was solely done to make a stronger case possible if someone were to be cited.

Back to top

#45 Guest_CATfishTONY_*

Guests

Posted 16 September 2010 - 04:41 PM

I recently had the opportunity to visit Casper on a week-long fish "adventure" that took me to Atlanta, Chattanooga, Nashville, Tishomingo, and finally back to Jackson. The subject of Tennessee's collecting reg's came up, and how you used to be able to collect baitfish but the new law says that they can't leave the water they are collected from.

Now, being the ultra conservative that I am, the question occurred to me - Can the State of Tennessee pass legislation that declares IT OWNS ALL THE FISHES IN THE WATERS OF TENNESSEE, and mere citizens can do nothing with them without the express permission of the State? Of course other states have done this as well, but the more I think about it the madder I get. I understand there are concerns about certain species, but honestly - this is government run amok. This is not a fair law.

What do you guys on the other side think - can the state claim ownership of all wildlife within the state, or is it public property?

And hey - let's keep it civil.

after some web time, WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT OWN THE FISH. but some native american tribes do.
each state has it's own laws (guide lines under federal law) and rules we the people must follow to the word or a law is broken. period

Back to top

#46 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:20 AM

No, it smack of established law. You never noticed?

Yes, and I never claimed that was right either. Since when did the law have anything to do with right and wrong? I agree with Swift on that score.

So We the People are too stupid to be allowed to keep wild birds or fishes as pets. I guess I'm just one of those people who are out of touch. On the lunatic fringe. In the meantime, dams are being built. Gambusia are being distributed.

This is only going to get worse. Human population will increase, and more laws will be passed. It is only a matter of time before keeping any kind of pet becomes illegal, and I can even foresee the time when eating meat will be criminalized as has smoking. You will not be allowed to pick wildflowers or chop down trees on your own property. Because the lawmakers have our (collective) best interests at heart, you see. And because they are paid to sit around and dream up laws, because something has to be DONE, right?

Aside from that, and getting back to earth, I still would like to know the facts in this particular case if there are any. I am inclined to lend creedence to the theory that this is an ill-considered attempt to prevent bait bucket introductions. Is that a problem in Tennessee? Or on the left coast, for that matter??

Back to top

#47 Guest_gzeiger_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 05:21 AM

I am continually amazed by the number of people here defending the action without answering the actual question (which was "is it right?"). So far I see only one person making any reference to principles, and everyone else explaining what the law is and why it would be less convenient to do the right thing.

Suddenly many other things become clear...

Back to top

#48 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:54 AM

So We the People are too stupid to be allowed to keep wild birds or fishes as pets. I guess I'm just one of those people who are out of touch. On the lunatic fringe. In the meantime, dams are being built. Gambusia are being distributed.

Aside from that, and getting back to earth, I still would like to know the facts in this particular case if there are any. I am inclined to lend creedence to the theory that this is an ill-considered attempt to prevent bait bucket introductions. Is that a problem in Tennessee? Or on the left coast, for that matter??

Not necessarily keep as pets, but to be left to manage populations on our own for recreational and commercial exploitation, yes. Care to go back to the waterfowl hunting practices of the first half of the 20th century, because I know I love seeing a thousand ducks shot in an afternoon. Or even those for black bass? Yellowstone cutthroat trout, sturgeon, alligator gar, freshwater mussels, Atlantic cod, etc., etc., etc.

Yes bait bucket introductions are a problem world wide. It's well publicized too. European native crayfish are all critically endangered because of North American species, Pacific species are imperiled because of Ohio and Mississippi basin species. Approximately half of Maryland's Etheostoma richness are definately or highly likely introduced via bait buckets. Just browse the NAS server sometime for species introduced by bait buckets. You'd be blown away how many Fundulids have been introduced outside their range. With harful pathogens, zebra mussels, didymo, new zeeland mud snails, eurasian water milfoil and the other myriad of things that tend to come with bait and water transfers from recreational users there are great reasons to restrict the collection and transfer of bait when you are potentially staring at ecosystem shifts, collapses, and faunal loss. Why isn't the likelihood that this is just a reaction to bait issues, which are being addressed similarly in other states for the past few yars, being giving the creedance it deserves? There doesn't have to be a collector related issue here and it seems to be something that is being actively searched for. The only reason I can see is the that there is an inherent selfishness (to quote Todd Crail "inner gollum")to keeping native fish for personal enjoyment that people are reacting too. Well guess what, it isn't just about you/us/me/NANFA, management decisions have to take into account multiple stakeholders and resource benefits.

"is it right" and "principles" are rather subjective too. Irate started the entire topic by stating his principles are based in his ultra conservatism. So what is right to him isn't necessarily what is right to the next person. Doing the "right thing" is also just as highly and personally subjective.

Back to top

#49 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 07:17 AM

I am continually amazed by the number of people here defending the action without answering the actual question (which was "is it right?"). So far I see only one person making any reference to principles, and everyone else explaining what the law is and why it would be less convenient to do the right thing.

Suddenly many other things become clear...

Do tell. Is the principle that anyone can take anything anywhere anytime? That seems to be the logic, and I guess we can elevate it to a principle. That's a good one in a perfect world, but with a population of 300 million-plus on the mainland U.S. it doesn't seem to be a good one. It really didn't work well for passenger pigeons, carolina parakeets or buffalo, when there were many fewer people living in the 48.

Back to top

#50 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:28 AM

I didn't see anyone say that taking anything, anywhere at anytime was a principle to uphold, and I don't see how disagreeing with law that restricts previously legal activity (taking bait species for home aquaria) to prevent an activity that nobody here is talking about (releasing bait species into the wild) is "ultra conservative". Why are we trying to put words in peoples mouths and paint people with a brush that may or may not apply?

What is right? Did I mention it's now illegal to snorkel my local river? It must be right since people who regulate our resources say it's right! I'm really surprised that people don't recognize that many states are a pen stroke away from not being allowed to have any native species to view, touch, keep at home etc. Is this right? Is it right to restrict the possession of a common plant or animal when other common plants or animals are allowed? You can take bass and other sportfish to eat yet cannot take an abundant and secure minnow home. I'm sorry but this defies logic and many would agree this "is not right".

Would I be horrible person to say the people who made my local river off limits to snorkeling are unnecessarily regulating a privilege that's important to me? Would I be expressing "ultra conservative" views if I were to say this law in unjust and should be challenged? What am I harming by snorkeling a river and honestly why do we give such power to the same people that feel it's prudent to put trout in water where sculpin are hanging on by a thread, the last stronghold for threatened fundulids in a drainage are displaced by gambusia and Largemouth bass are passed out like candy at child's birthday party?

Back to top

#51 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:26 PM

I ain't denying it's a mess, just saying that we can swing between no limits on resource exploitation a la 19th century America, and the current trend towards overregulation with agencies "pleasing the crowd" with idiotic LMB and trout stocking. Maybe the better way to look at it is, just because I know I'm responsible how do I know other people are, and what can be done to minimize collective damage? This cuts both ways.

Back to top

#52 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:26 PM

Do tell. Is the principle that anyone can take anything anywhere anytime? That seems to be the logic, and I guess we can elevate it to a principle. That's a good one in a perfect world, but with a population of 300 million-plus on the mainland U.S. it doesn't seem to be a good one. It really didn't work well for passenger pigeons, carolina parakeets or buffalo, when there were many fewer people living in the 48.

Within reason, yes. I claim the state is being unreasonable. To restate my original question, who OWNS the fishes, and by what right? The state MUST respect the rights of its citizens and not reserve them all for itself. Not everything needs to be regulated. To say that it can does not mean that it should. At what point do you say ENOUGH!! Does anybody here actually see wildlife and environmental laws being relaxed in the future? No, they will be tightened. And then tightened again. And again. Until...

Those of you who are saying that this type of legislation is understandable and maybe even necessary: I want to know, where do YOU draw the line? When has the state gone too far? Or is this just a "good start"?

I understand the concerns here. I do. It may surprise some of you to know that I consider myself a conservationist. NOT an environmentalist. There has to be balance. I see no balance in laws such as Tennessee's. And I am still wondering exactly WHAT prompted them to enact this law and why they would think it is an OK thing to do. We complain about how all the attention gets paid to fishermen and gamefish and the poor darters get overlooked when the budget is finalized. Well, the reason is that people are allowed to fish ("allowed" - now there's a concept!) for gamefish but not for nongame fishes, which incidentally far outnumber the former.

Back to top

#53 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:30 PM

I would like to add that I am enjoying EVERYbody's responses, even though I don't agree with all of them, and I appreciate the fact that everyone is keeping this discussion on an intellectual level rather than personal.

Back to top

#54 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:46 PM

I'm with Irate on this one. I would like to know the reasoning behind this change in the law. I understand what the state is trying to do, but they just blanketed the issue, not completey solved it.

I realize that NANFA is a drop in the river in law making and that most law makers would not consider our opinion...BUT, do we not have an obligation to at least voice our concern, as an organized group to those in control?

NANFA Objective

to encourage and defend the legal and environmentally responsible collection of native fishes for private aquaria as a valid use of a natural resource

Back to top

#55 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:01 PM

Martin, it just struck me that you work hard at trying to pose rhetorical questions that have no (short) answer. That's fine. I would simply say that we could and should work to change those laws and, ultimately, attitudes. If not us, who? We even already have a 501(c(3)!

Back to top

#56 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:16 PM

Martin, it just struck me that you work hard at trying to pose rhetorical questions that have no (short) answer. That's fine. I would simply say that we could and should work to change those laws and, ultimately, attitudes. If not us, who? We even already have a 501(c(3)!

Well, that feeling you get is partly because the more involved I get in a discussion the more complicated it gets. But I don't think that any question I have posed is rhetorical. This is real life and I am as serious as a heart attack.

I don't entirely get the sense that NANFA is united on this particular issue. Nobody has said anything outright to make me think this, but there seems to be a trickle of an undercurrent...maybe it's my imagination. If we ARE in agreement, then perhaps this is a good time to take an official stance and attempt to reverse this legislation. Or at the very least make ourselves heard, and maybe make some people think about what they are trying to accomplish.

I am willing to write a statement regarding the Tennessee law - not sure who to send it to, and not sure if I can do it without getting folks riled, but I am willing to create a draft which can be circulated amongst interested parties for amendment and commentary, and subsequently submitted where it will do the most good.

But I need some facts on which to base my arguments. I need the specifics of why this was done. There are some connected folks here - any help?

Back to top

#57 Guest_khudgins_*

Guests

Posted 18 September 2010 - 12:10 AM

I am willing to write a statement regarding the Tennessee law - not sure who to send it to, and not sure if I can do it without getting folks riled, but I am willing to create a draft which can be circulated amongst interested parties for amendment and commentary, and subsequently submitted where it will do the most good.

But I need some facts on which to base my arguments. I need the specifics of why this was done. There are some connected folks here - any help?

Personally, I'd love to be a part of NANFA efforts to help shape policy regarding our area of interest. We have a unique collection of professionals, amateurs, and observers among our membership to be a real voice of advocacy, both on this Tennessee issue and on others that have come up. Martin, anything I can do from the other side of the world, let me know.

Back to top

#58 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:47 PM

Martin, anything I can do from the other side of the world, let me know.

Atlanta is my home town!

I know a guy in Tennessee who knows a guy who... anyway, maybe I can get some decent ammunition. I kind of surprised at certain folks who I thought would chime in on this thread, but didn't. Nothing sinister I suppose - I skip certain forums routinely. Some people skip my posts routinely [-(

Anyway - thanks for the offer, and if you can dig up anything solid about this law, let me know. I need to know the names of the people involved, what their positions are, their contact info, and what they were doing the afternoon of Feb. 29 between the hours of approximately 2:00pm and 3:45pm. :-k

I'll do my own research of course, but any help would be... helpful.

Back to top

#59 Guest_FirstChAoS_*

Guests

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:09 PM

Some people skip my posts routinely

You're too entertaining and funny to skip. It takes a while (a few months for me)to get used to you though, you're an acquired taste, but like ick you grow on people.

I stated my view on fish collecting before in other posts. Basicly I think it should be regulated like any other fishery (I know, fish and wildlife agencies lack the members to regulate it like they do game fishing) and it should gradually be making a shift to aquaculture to save what they can as keepable (and to preserve diminishing but not yet endangered species) before collecting is stopped completely.