KLG poachers

[dcabarle]

Well, I'm going to fall off the beaten path here and I'll accept whatever groans I get. GB... I understand 100% what you're saying. It's not brain surgery. That doesn't mean I agee 100%, but I do agree with some of it.

NJangler, sometimes I wonder whether this is about disdain for spin fishermen - since there are not truly poachers in NJ in the true sense of the word, is the word "poacher" just how some of these folks imagine spin guys to be.

Rusty, please re-read my post. I use the word "guess" about elephants because, frankly, I don't know a thing about the current state of the international ivory trade, and mean to honestly admit that.

Instead, my point is that the traditional, individual poacher targets animals that are valuable for their horns and tusks, and not for their meat.

Sure, there are poaching vessels that harvest tons of fish illegally at sea, but to accrue a profit poaching fish for food, you gotta get 1000s of fish. Food is cheap, ivory is expensive - it is worthwhile, from a poacher's view to kill 1 animal for its ivory, but senseless to spend hours harvesting a few ounces of brook trout fillets.

This should not be controversial, and my logic is sound (point out any flaws, I will listen). Of course, if people are netting brookies and selling them to restaurants, that is a serious crime. But such poaching is uncommon, and please don't fool yourself: if I saw a guy netting brookies, I'd report em too.

 

[dcabarle]

good point. as a spin fisherman who dabbles in fly fishing on occasion, the prejudice shown (here and other sites) towards those who don't fly fish can be obvious. the "elitist" and "snob" tags often given to fly fisherman certainly do not apply to all but some do earn it and seemingly proud of it.

as for its impacts, hard to say. 4 guys camping for a 10 days in the woods along a small stream can take plenty of trout legally(200 if they take 5 per day each for ten days) and do some serious damage. how often does this happen? rare but i've heard stories.

Wait a minute now.. I thought that holding a fly rod was like a promotion. Like a pilot gets his wings, a patrolman gets promoted to a sergeant, a major gets promoted to a General.... Shit, even a boyscout gets promoted to Eagle Scout sometimes. (by the way, I hear AKSkim is an Eagle Scout). Why settle for just being a fisherman when you can be a fly fisherman? Unless you're simple or simply a numbers guy of course. No asperations to be something better, etc... Maybe just not interested in a challenge; or in your case, "on occasion".

Of course I agree with what I'm saying here, but please note that I do have a sense of humor attached to it. Hmmm, I need a good smiley for this... :toilet-humor:

 

[springman]

Wait a minute now.. I thought that holding a fly rod was like a promotion. Like a pilot gets his wings, a patrolman gets promoted to a sergeant, a major gets promoted to a General.... Shit, even a boyscout gets promoted to Eagle Scout sometimes. (by the way, I hear AKSkim is an Eagle Scout). Why settle for just being a fisherman when you can be a fly fisherman? Unless you're simple or simply a numbers guy of course. No asperations to be something better, etc... Maybe just not interested in a challenge; or in your case, "on occasion".

Of course I agree with what I'm saying here, but please note that I do have a sense of humor attached to it. Hmmm, I need a good smiley for this... :toilet-humor:

I agree as well. when i moved to flyfishing it was a huge promotion in my mind and also a way better challenge. besides the trout have a better chance to escape on the fly rod as well. even with super light spinning gear and 4 lb test there is little chance to lose many trout because the line is so strong these days. plus with the invention of powerbait, it's way too easy to catch stocked trout.

The whole poacher question had nothing to do with the method but was really about keeping over the limit blatantly in a posted conservation area that others enjoy catch and release in. Of course, since there are signs everywhere in the the fact that they were using bait illegally just adds insult to injury. it's like basically saying FU guys and I dare you to say something to start a fight. they guys probably had a gun ready to shoot anyone who yelled at them.

 

[golden beetle]

When I discussed this thread with the master-debator, we agreed that my opponent's errors were of logic, and not of facts. They confuse specific cases for general rules.

The most egregious form of this is the common stereotype - usually of a racial variety. Again, I am sorry that my posts are so intellectual, it is just that I have always been aware of my intelligence and just refuse not to share it and use it to correct people of their prejudices.

NJAngler, you speak in common sense terms. I make some mistakes - they are rare - so obviously you should not agree with me on everything. Of course, my opponents see no gray areas. I, on the other habd, acknowledge the truth of some specific incidents they report of "poaching," but, of course, the type of "poaching" they cite does not fit the common usage of the word, which is used to describe ivory poachers, and the illegal harvest of 1000s of fish by commercial vessels.

The literal definition of poaching may be seen to include the "illegal taking" of any game fish. So, when the argument is made that, since there are illegal takings that there are, therefore, poachers, is, on its face, an appealing one.

But again, if the appellation of "poacher" to the fisherman who takes one fish over his limit is poaching, then I have to ask: what if the guy didn't intend to take the extra fish? He was forgetful, and just put an extra brookie in the bag by accident?

I would think that poaching, in the true sense of the term, involves an INTENT to illegally take fish, notwithstanding that the definition, literally taken, seems to apply to this guy who made a simple mistake.

Thus, before we use the word poacher so quickly, we need to consult our common sense, and not be willing to abuse language so readily.

One of the basic laws is "thou shalt not kill.". In that commandment, it doesn't specify people. So, are we all in violation of that law and therefore sinners for taking one fish?

Or, let's say we all agree that god meant "thou shalt not kill people," but just forgot to add the word "people" to his commandment.

Ok, so you are walking down the street, and you are attacked with deadly force by a fly fisherman who sees you carrying a stringer of what appear to be illegally taken trout. You respond, defending yourself, and in the process, your attacker is mortally wounded.

You have killed a person, but have you violated God's commandment? Or, perhaps God meant to say "thou shalt not kill people except in cases of self defense."

Use common sense here, and you will see the light I am bringing.

Hugs.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

When I discussed this thread with the master-debator, we agreed that my opponent's errors were of logic, and not of facts. They confuse specific cases for general rules.

Everybody watch out! The Dung Beetle has consulted a masturbator and has reached the conclusion that you're all fools! That really seems like an inevitable conclusion though, when you have such heavyweights putting their vast intellectual resources together on the same issue. Once again you're arguing over nothing and making shit up - flinging dung on the whole issue like only a Dung Beetle can.

The most egregious form of this is the common stereotype - usually of a racial variety.

Your masturbator friend is somewhat correct though, you're very good at steering the debate away from the actual issues, like here where you bring up racism to make it look like you've got a point when in reality it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. That's the first rule of debating, always look like you know what you're talking about, and when you're losing, confuse the issues.

Again, I am sorry that my posts are so intellectual, it is just that I have always been aware of my intelligence and just refuse not to share it and use it to correct people of their prejudices.

:beingsick: :beingsick::beingsick::beingsick::beingsick::beingsick::beingsick::beingsick::beingsick::beingsick:

NJAngler, you speak in common sense terms. I make some mistakes - they are rare - so obviously you should not agree with me on everything. Of course, my opponents see no gray areas. I, on the other habd, acknowledge the truth of some specific incidents they report of "poaching," but, of course, the type of "poaching" they cite does not fit the common usage of the word, which is used to describe ivory poachers, and the illegal harvest of 1000s of fish by commercial vessels.

The literal definition of poaching may be seen to include the "illegal taking" of any game fish. So, when the argument is made that, since there are illegal takings that there are, therefore, poachers, is, on its face, an appealing one.

But again, if the appellation of "poacher" to the fisherman who takes one fish over his limit is poaching, then I have to ask: what if the guy didn't intend to take the extra fish? He was forgetful, and just put an extra brookie in the bag by accident?

You refer to "common usage" but just like with your argument over the definition of "sportsman" you're adopting an artificially narrow definition of the term in order to make your argument right. Anyone can do that with anything, but the problem with your argument is that your definition is WRONG. A poacher is a person who takes fish or animals illegally. The illegality of such act can be determined by any number of extrinsic facts - e.g. the fisherman was trespassing at the time, he was using banned methods (bait in an artificials only section), or he kept a fish that was undersized or took more than the bag limit.

You seem to want there to be more to the defintion - e.g. the fish or animal has to be rare/valuable, the person must have intended to do it etc. But that's not part of the definition! Just like how a sportsman can be a conservationist at the same time, you can poach a trout by doing so illegally and a person who does that is just as much a poacher as one who poaches an elephant. Obviously there are varying degrees of the concept and an elephant poacher causes a lot more harm than a trout poacher but they're still the same thing.

I would think that poaching, in the true sense of the term, involves an INTENT to illegally take fish, notwithstanding that the definition, literally taken, seems to apply to this guy who made a simple mistake.

Thus, before we use the word poacher so quickly, we need to consult our common sense, and not be willing to abuse language so readily.

If anyone is abusing language here it's definitely you by your attempts to constrain the definition of a common term using your flawed logic and by applying your own "common sense" to attempt to vary something that really isn't a subject of debate.

Unfortunately for your argument the law does not factor your "commonsense" (or rather nonsense) definition of the word. The things you would like us to consider have little to no bearing on whether a person has broken the law. if it is illegal to do something, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. So in your example the person's intent is not relevant to whether the broke the law (unless of course intent is an element of the crime) but it may be relevant to the punishment they receive. So a person who takes a fish without realizing that it was illegal to do so might only receive a warning rather than a fine, but that does not mitigate the illegality of what they did in the first place.

 

[Corndog]

GB,

As you try to state "facts" in your posts to prove your points, you're completely missing the boat.

The point is, most of us here don't give a damn about what you think is fact and would just like to see you leave.

Damn! Now I'm stating facts.
Cdog

 

[golden beetle]

Corndogerhaps I could be of assistance to you. If you want me to go away, can't you simply put me on your ignore list? Short of doing that, you can stop opening, reading, and replying to everything that I write. Taking those small steps should go a long way to ridding my alter-ego, Golden Beetle, from your Internet consciousness.

 

[golden beetle]

Dr. Gonzo: I enjoyed reading your post and thought you deserved a reply.

If the law states, "thou shalt not kill," is someone who kills in self-defense a killer, just like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson? Is it possible that, in some instances, the "language of the law can be taken too literally? Failing to distinguish an act of self defense from premeditated murder strikes me as abusing the language of the law, "thou shalt not kill," to the detriment of civil society.

Let's look at another example and I will await your response. On the highway, there are signs that say "speed limit 55.". Now, I usually drive 60 or so in 55 zones, and I always drive in the right lane if I can cruise at 60 there comfortably.

Police cars pass me constantly, and do not stop me for speeding, notwithstanding the language of the law, "speed limit 55."

Unless you set your cruise control at 55, can you agree that common sense does, in fact, play a role in the application of the law, and that, since the law is not applied to instances of speeding at 60 miles per hour, that such a speed is not a violation, notwithstanding a 55 mph limit?

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that a guy who accidentally takes 1 too many or 1 too small can be described as a poacher, in the sense of what the law hopes to prevent by setting limits to taking fish.

 

[Corndog]

Corndogerhaps I could be of assistance to you. If you want me to go away, can't you simply put me on your ignore list? Short of doing that, you can stop opening, reading, and replying to everything that I write. Taking those small steps should go a long way to ridding my alter-ego, Golden Beetle, from your Internet consciousness.

Honestly, I haven't read more than the first line of your posts in more than a month. I have no interest in reading the gibberish of a psychopath. I just add to your list of groans and scroll down.

The reason I said, "The point is, most of us here don't give a damn about what you think is fact and would just like to see you leave." is that you have posted 99 times and have received 120 groans.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Cdog

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Dr. Gonzo: I enjoyed reading your post and thought you deserved a reply.

If the law states, "thou shalt not kill," is someone who kills in self-defense a killer, just like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson? Is it possible that, in some instances, the "language of the law can be taken too literally? Failing to distinguish an act of self defense from premeditated murder strikes me as abusing the language of the law, "thou shalt not kill," to the detriment of civil society.

Firstly, the laws that punish another person are not a good analogy because they all require some sort of culpable mental state (that a person acted knowinglg, recklessly etc) and carry serious jail terms. Whereas poaching is generally a strict liability offense (no mental state required) punishable by a fine. This is because the state really doesn't care why you have a trout under the size limit, if you do it's illegal and they're not going to go through the trouble of proving what you knew or didn't know (though it is within the CO's discretion not to issue you a ticket if she/he thinks you're a good person who made an honest mistake). Therefore, your innocent state of mind is irrelevant to whether you've kept a fish in violation of the law.

Assuming for a second that your analogy is useful, when a person kills in self-defense the law does not punish them because their wrongful act is considered to be excused by the circumstances. This doesn't change the fact that killing other people is illegal, it just means that the person who kills in self defense has an excuse (or in legal terminology, a defense to the crime). This is why often times self defense is only a partial defense. For example if you punch me in the face and I shoot you, I am technically defending myself but it is not a complete defense because I was not justified in using deadly force. This is also why many states (including New York) require that you retreat from your attacker before resorting to the use of deadly force - because the law still thinks that killing is wrong, even in self defense.

Let's look at another example and I will await your response. On the highway, there are signs that say "speed limit 55.". Now, I usually drive 60 or so in 55 zones, and I always drive in the right lane if I can cruise at 60 there comfortably.

Police cars pass me constantly, and do not stop me for speeding, notwithstanding the language of the law, "speed limit 55."

Unless you set your cruise control at 55, can you agree that common sense does, in fact, play a role in the application of the law, and that, since the law is not applied to instances of speeding at 60 miles per hour, that such a speed is not a violation, notwithstanding a 55 mph limit?

This is totally different from your murder example. We're dealing with the discretion of the law enforcement agent here. You could theoretically be issued a ticket for going 5 miles over the speed limit because that is speeding. But since everyone tends to go about that fast or faster, cops would have to pull over everyone on the road or at least 80% of motorists. Do the math, that's several million traffic stops per day. Not to mention that a cop that pulls you over for going 5 miles over the limit would be unable to pull over the guy behind you going 45 miles over who actually poses a real risk to other motorists. They've got more important things to deal with. Of course, if you happen to fit the profile of a drug dealer, or your car looks supicious and you're going 5 miles over they might pull you over as a pretext for questioning you a little bit, and that is fine as per the Supreme Court.

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that a guy who accidentally takes 1 too many or 1 too small can be described as a poacher, in the sense of what the law hopes to prevent by setting limits to taking fish.

This thread started with a discussion of a person with a stringer full of trout. I don't know where you get this example from but the likelihood is that the guy you describe would get a warning or a ticket and that's the end - again it has to do with exercise of discretion by the CO. He may not be a career "poacher" but he certainly poached a fish, accidentally or not. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not an excuse so you can't rely on that to get you out of trouble in any situation.

 

[golden beetle]

Dr. Gonzo: I just finished reading your response, and I admit to being a bit tangled up in technicalities. I think I understand the difference between a serious crime (like murder), and a petty offense ( taking one too many trout).

You very ably pointed out that constitutional due process protections require the proof of intent, in the case of serious crimes, like murder. You are further correct to point out that the State simply does not want to bother with "poaching" in the State of New Jersey - it is, as you call it - a "strict liability" offense, punishable by a nominal fine. About 10 bucks?

Good points by you - we agree!

Finally, I did some research of the term "poaching", and it turns out that poaching involves the illegal taking of a WILD animal. Since there are no wild fish, besides the rare offspring of stockies, in the SBR, it would not come as a surprise that most cases of POACHING in NJ involve bass, and not trout, or would it?