05-16-2013, 01:42 AM
[quote PBH]
Doesn't this go both ways?
How 'bout you guys provide something to show that allowing live bait doesn't provide additional potential for negative results??[/quote]
I can't prove that I personally wouldn't move the live bait around, but I can still know that I wouldn't. That's good enough for me.
I realize it's an exercise in futility to try and talk the people charged with the responsibility of managing and protecting our waters into allowing live bait. It's just too much for them to try and keep up with. I understand that.
The exact same situation exists with crayfish, but nobody is making a stink about that. Perhaps they don't proliferate as quickly as bait fish.
For those that think my side represents legalizing all sorts of things (though I do believe too many laws already exist - different subject) because the bad guys would do it anyway, that's far from my logic.
My logic doesn't lobby for responsible people to do irresponsible things (moving live fish). It lobbies for responsible people to responsibly use live bait where they were caught, then kill them before taking any leftovers home or release the unused minnows from the same place they already were.
No harm, no foul.
Those that are irresponsible don't even count, since they do whatever they want anyway. That doesn't mean we should bend our laws to accommodate them. If you think that's what I'm saying, you're simply wrong. Nice try though.
The fact remains that they exist though. I know, it's a battle I can't win, but for the record, I know that I would follow a "crayfish" type of allowance of live bait.
I would like to fish with live bait in the waters those species of bait fish are found (and eaten). No, I really don't have too much trouble catching fish as it is, but it's an experience I haven't had and would like to. That's all.
It won't happen here. So be it. As a responsible, law abiding fisherman, I'll continue to go without because the regulations don't allow for it.
[signature]
Doesn't this go both ways?
How 'bout you guys provide something to show that allowing live bait doesn't provide additional potential for negative results??[/quote]
I can't prove that I personally wouldn't move the live bait around, but I can still know that I wouldn't. That's good enough for me.
I realize it's an exercise in futility to try and talk the people charged with the responsibility of managing and protecting our waters into allowing live bait. It's just too much for them to try and keep up with. I understand that.
The exact same situation exists with crayfish, but nobody is making a stink about that. Perhaps they don't proliferate as quickly as bait fish.
For those that think my side represents legalizing all sorts of things (though I do believe too many laws already exist - different subject) because the bad guys would do it anyway, that's far from my logic.
My logic doesn't lobby for responsible people to do irresponsible things (moving live fish). It lobbies for responsible people to responsibly use live bait where they were caught, then kill them before taking any leftovers home or release the unused minnows from the same place they already were.
No harm, no foul.
Those that are irresponsible don't even count, since they do whatever they want anyway. That doesn't mean we should bend our laws to accommodate them. If you think that's what I'm saying, you're simply wrong. Nice try though.
The fact remains that they exist though. I know, it's a battle I can't win, but for the record, I know that I would follow a "crayfish" type of allowance of live bait.
I would like to fish with live bait in the waters those species of bait fish are found (and eaten). No, I really don't have too much trouble catching fish as it is, but it's an experience I haven't had and would like to. That's all.
It won't happen here. So be it. As a responsible, law abiding fisherman, I'll continue to go without because the regulations don't allow for it.
[signature]