Who owns the fishes?

lmao. dont you mean fortunately

.think of the burden of proof that is required for LEO.

I am not sympathetic.

lmao. dont you mean fortunately

I'm pretty sure he didn't.

I'm pretty sure he didn't.

I saw this today.

http://news.tennesse...e.org/node/5818

Does this mean there is no change to non-game fish? It seems this article only applies to game fish, but I couldn't find any other info on the subject.

Nope, because they exist within the 2010 regulations (on page 16 and 17) therefore it is not a new change for 2011. Specifically see Section III Class C baitfish regulations.

Something I hear more and more from the herpers is the general attitude from various states is NO native wildlife pets period. Turns out by reading carefully through all the laws, it really was already illegal in many places without adding new laws. The bait laws close the loop hole fish had previously.
Little kids keeping garter snakes or tadpoles or sunnies are outlaws.

It's true, though it would be a hardheaded LEO that took action against such a kid. A lot of these regulations are to allow discretionary enforcement- violators are seldom prosecuted (or even warned) except in egregious situations. For example, in Tennessee all native wildlife (defined to include tetrapods, crustaceans, and molluscs, but not other inverts or fishes) is legally protected. You must have permits to take any wildlife. However, TWRA is not in the business of prosecuting people for whacking a kingsnake with a hoe or trapping cotton rats in their barn. The law does allow them to prosecute if somebody is collecting or killing large numbers of wildlife. It's all up to the LEOs' discretion. Now whether TWRA officers have been instructed to enforce the new bait regulations more thoroughly than the old ones, I couldn't say.

It's all up to the LEOs' discretion

I have a problem with this.

I'm describing, not defending. Overly broad, sporadically enforced laws such as these put way too much power in the hands of the individual officer, and leave citizens uncertain as to what they can and can't do. On the other hand, there is a current trend towards top-down management and denial of those who are actually involved any leeway for case-by-case judgement (I'm talking about gov't, and even big business, in general, not wildlife law in particular) and seems to be geared more towards limiting liability than any legitimate goal. Both extremes create bad situations for those of us to whom the laws apply.

Great topic! I don't have a problem with LEO's being discretionary. They can only go one way, since they can't be stricter than the regs allow.

Wisconsin regs are supposedly intended to stop the spread of VHS. One reg says you can't take live fish away from a lake or stream. Another reg says you can't release fish that have been held in an aquarium. Not releasing fish stops the spread of disease, but not allowing the taking of live fish doesn't. Seems live a clear case of over regulation. Maybe NANFA could do something about this? At lease make some noise.

Here in Mississippi you can buy goldfish in almost any bait shop. Then we have regulations such as Tennessee's. Where is the happy medium?

No, the Gov't does not own the fish(ery), per se. But, the people do own the fish and the waters. Thus the Gov't(by the people for the people) has the right to legislate the fishery for the wealth of the people and by default the wealth of the fishery. The Government's job isn't to own anything, it's to manage the general wealth and to promote the general welfare, and to "Promote the General Welfare" for the people it must have certain implied rights, such as this.

the Gov't(by the people for the people)

A great idea that has been lost.

the right to legislate the fishery for the wealth of the people and by default the wealth of the fishery.

I am not finding in the Constitution where the government has the right to legislate wealth, period, although some politicians do think it is incumbent upon them to seize wealth and redistribute it.

The Government's job isn't to own anything

Is the government aware of this?

to "Promote the General Welfare" for the people it must have certain implied rights

This is the phrase from which all abuse flows.

Aside from the above...

I would argue that for the state to absolutely forbid removing ANY non-game fishes from the waters of Tennessee without their express permission (i.e. a permit), then the state is asserting exclusive ownership, not regulating a fishery. To forbid something is not the same as regulating it. I further assert that the state employees creating these rules are not elected and represent neither the people nor their interests and/or welfare.

Edited by Irate Mormon, 13 November 2010 - 12:03 AM.

A great idea that has been lost.

I gather you don't vote, and don't think anyone else does?

Not to get political, but I think the last election showed that the people do have a say in how the country is run.

We're catching the fallout from fishermen using live bait. Even if they don't dump a bait bucket out, a VHS infected baitfish can get off the hook, maybe get swallowed by a sport fish that gets off the hook and gets infected, and so on. Live bait is a problem.

Of course, law enforcement would have to be able to distinguish between someone collecting for home keeping, and someone collecting for bait. Pretty big loophole there, fishermen can already spin tall tales. To them, it's easier just to shut down all transport of native fish, than to try to tell the one from the other. Native fish collectors have to make their voice heard, and it will have to be loud enough for politicians to notice. That's the only way that situation will change.

There's also fallout on native fish lovers and especially herpers, from the idiots who keep exotic and dangerous animals, like primates or big cats. Oh, if you love it, it will love you. Not true. I once rehab'd and released a timber wolf that someone tried to raise from a puppy, it almost bit the owner's hand off when they tried to give it a bath. Let me tell you, you could see five thousand years of domestication that wasn't there. That was a spooky animal. I've also rehab'd orphan raccoon babies. After a certain period of time, they just don't want to be around any animal, as they lead a solitary existance once fully grown. Foxes are the same way, they look like a dog, but they're solitary and don't want company of any sort. Not all creatures can be pets.

Of course, that has nothing to do with a tank full of darters, but the sound bites that rule news and politicians aren't long enough to explain this. We're collateral damage. If we want to change this, we have to speak sensibly, and speak in a united manner to set the record straight.

Personally, I think they should go to the source, and ban international ships from inland waterways. Can't pump their bilges into a freshwater stream if they're not there. This globalization has a downside, too.

I gather you don't vote, and don't think anyone else does?

That would be a false assumption. It is apparent however that many politicians are pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the "people". Despite the results of the last election, these same politicians are determined to forge ahead and do as much damage as possible before their terms expire.

This is veering well away from native fish and into general political discussion. This is not the place for it.

This is veering well away from native fish and into general political discussion. This is not the place for it.

Yes, this was the inevitable result of such a discussion and we should end it here.