01-17-2019, 08:29 PM
[quote TubeDude][#0000FF]"What if" laws tend to punish or restrict the law-abiding majority in an effort to curtail the lawless minority. And guess what. The offenders continue to ignore the laws anyway...and those who would benefit by looser restrictions continue to do without.
[/#0000FF][/quote]
Huh? I am not following this line of thinking. Aren't all laws basically "What if?" laws? Look at fishing regulations, for example...don't we have rules governing how many fish people take home to prevent overharvest? Isn't that a "What if?" scenario? Shouldn't the harvest regulations just allow whatever harvest you or I deem acceptable then? Aren't harvest regulations just punishing us as law-abiding citizens? What about tackle restrictions? Like fly and lure only? Or, size restrictions like slot limits? Don't they also punish the majority of anglers and benefit the few who break the laws anyway? Don't such restrictions have their place and value for the benefit of fisheries?
Basically, you are ok with the law saying fish shouldn't be moved from one water to another water (isn't that a "what if?" law?) but not the rule that makes it more difficult to move fish. So, which "What if?" laws are ok and which are not? I mean isn't the first law regarding the movement of live fishes from one water to the next about what if the transported fish establish a viable population?
[signature]
[/#0000FF][/quote]
Huh? I am not following this line of thinking. Aren't all laws basically "What if?" laws? Look at fishing regulations, for example...don't we have rules governing how many fish people take home to prevent overharvest? Isn't that a "What if?" scenario? Shouldn't the harvest regulations just allow whatever harvest you or I deem acceptable then? Aren't harvest regulations just punishing us as law-abiding citizens? What about tackle restrictions? Like fly and lure only? Or, size restrictions like slot limits? Don't they also punish the majority of anglers and benefit the few who break the laws anyway? Don't such restrictions have their place and value for the benefit of fisheries?
Basically, you are ok with the law saying fish shouldn't be moved from one water to another water (isn't that a "what if?" law?) but not the rule that makes it more difficult to move fish. So, which "What if?" laws are ok and which are not? I mean isn't the first law regarding the movement of live fishes from one water to the next about what if the transported fish establish a viable population?
[signature]